Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore

Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209" }, "headline": "Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and...", "datePublished": "2025-11-05T11:08:16", "dateModified": "2026-04-03T09:11:40", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background South Africa continues to underperform in primary mathematics, with foundational gaps evident across content and cognitive skills. This study investigates domain-specific patterns of achievement and cognitive demand using the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023, benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners against Singaporean Grade 4 learners. Methods A quantitative secondary analysis was conducted on nationally representative TIMSS 2023 datasets comprising 10,424 South African learners from 285 schools and 6,530 Singaporean learners from 181 schools. Mathematics achievement was disaggregated by content domains (Number, Measurement and Geometry, Data) and cognitive domains (Knowing, Applying, Reasoning). Weighted estimates, mean differences, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were computed to characterise performance gaps within and between countries. Results South African learners scored well below the international centre point across all content and cognitive domains. The largest content gap with Singapore occurred in Measurement and Geometry, indicating persistent weaknesses in spatial reasoning. We observed the widest disparity in the cognitive domain of knowing, which reflected fragile factual knowledge and procedural fluency. South African learners showed relatively stronger performance in applying mathematical concepts, indicating some competence with routine and structured tasks; however, their deficits in knowing hindered their progression to reasoning, particularly in multi-step and non-routine problem-solving, which were the weakest areas. Conclusions Early mathematics learning in South Africa is characterised by weak foundational knowledge, underdeveloped spatial reasoning, and limited opportunities for higher-order thinking. Targeted reforms should improve number and fact fluency, provide better teaching support for geometry and measurement, and add learning tasks that build on what learners are good at to help them think more clearly. Aligning curriculum intent, teacher development, and assessment expectations is essential to close domain-specific gaps and advance equitable foundational learning outcomes. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1", "name": "Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights..." } } ] } Home Browse Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Mokgwathi MS. Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8085-7447 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8085-7447 PUBLISHED 05 Nov 2025 Author details Author details Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, Gauteng, 0003, South Africa Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Developmental Psychology and Cognition gateway. Abstract Background South Africa continues to underperform in primary mathematics, with foundational gaps evident across content and cognitive skills. This study investigates domain-specific patterns of achievement and cognitive demand using the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 , benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners against Singaporean Grade 4 learners. Methods A quantitative secondary analysis was conducted on nationally representative TIMSS 2023 datasets comprising 10,424 South African learners from 285 schools and 6,530 Singaporean learners from 181 schools. Mathematics achievement was disaggregated by content domains (Number, Measurement and Geometry, Data) and cognitive domains (Knowing, Applying, Reasoning). Weighted estimates, mean differences, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were computed to characterise performance gaps within and between countries. Results South African learners scored well below the international centre point across all content and cognitive domains. The largest content gap with Singapore occurred in Measurement and Geometry, indicating persistent weaknesses in spatial reasoning. We observed the widest disparity in the cognitive domain of knowing, which reflected fragile factual knowledge and procedural fluency. South African learners showed relatively stronger performance in applying mathematical concepts, indicating some competence with routine and structured tasks; however, their deficits in knowing hindered their progression to reasoning, particularly in multi-step and non-routine problem-solving, which were the weakest areas. Conclusions Early mathematics learning in South Africa is characterised by weak foundational knowledge, underdeveloped spatial reasoning, and limited opportunities for higher-order thinking. Targeted reforms should improve number and fact fluency, provide better teaching support for geometry and measurement, and add learning tasks that build on what learners are good at to help them think more clearly. Aligning curriculum intent, teacher development, and assessment expectations is essential to close domain-specific gaps and advance equitable foundational learning outcomes. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) , Mathematics Achievement, Content and Cognitive Domains, South Africa, Singapore Corresponding Author(s) Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Mokgwathi MS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Mokgwathi MS. Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.1 ) First published: 05 Nov 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.1 ) Latest published: 03 Apr 2026, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.3 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Mathematics achievement at the primary school level has profound implications for learners’ future participation in education, work, and society. Basic mathematics skills help with higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and learning for life, which are all important for both academic success and social participation ( Mullis et al., 2020 ). TIMSS has become a critical assessment instrument for benchmarking mathematical learner achievement internationally, revealing how national curricula, teaching practices, and educational systems prepare learners for cognitive demands in mathematics. South Africa has participated in TIMSS since 1995 and, despite modest gains, remains one of the lowest-performing systems globally ( Zuze et al., 2018 ). Much of the existing research focuses on Grade 9 data, emphasising long-term learning deficits and systemic inequities ( Mensah & Baidoo-Anu, 2022 ; Reddy & Hannan, 2019 ). Far less attention has been given to the primary phase, particularly Grade 5, where learners consolidate fundamental numeracy and begin to transition from concrete to abstract reasoning. TIMSS 2023 results indicate that South African Grade 5 learners achieved an average score of 362 compared to Singapore’s Grade 4 average of 615 (TIMSS, 2023). This 250-point gap, despite Singaporean learners being a grade lower than South African learners, signals deep foundational weaknesses in South Africa’s education system, inclusive of mathematics education. National assessments such as the Annual National Assessments (ANA), which is now discontinued, and systemic evaluation reports have highlighted low achievement levels in mathematics among learners, but they rarely explore how learners perform across specific content and cognitive domains. Yet TIMSS distinguishes between three content domains (numbers, measurement and geometry, and data) and three cognitive domains (knowing, applying, and reasoning). Assessing learner achievement through these lenses allows for a diagnostic understanding of learners’ strengths and weaknesses. Research from high-performing education systems such as Singapore demonstrates that consistent curriculum alignment ( Johnson et al., 2020 ), spiral progression, and scaffolded teaching and learning cultivate a balanced development of knowledge, application, and reasoning skills ( Choy & Dindyal, 2024 ; Low & Wong, 2021 ; Morony, 2023 ; Mullis et al., 2020 ). Conversely, South African studies point to persistent challenges in geometry, reasoning, and teacher content knowledge ( Maqoqa, 2024 ; Taylor, 2021 ), compounded by curriculum overload and large class sizes that limit opportunities for formative assessment and conceptual engagement. Improving mathematics learner achievement therefore requires more than curriculum reform; it depends on strengthening the consistency between curriculum design and development, teacher professional development, and classroom practice. Knowing how learners interact with the content and cognitive demands offers crucial understanding of the areas that require the most instructional support and pedagogical innovation. This study addresses these gaps by analysing South African Grade 5 learners’ performance at TIMSS 2023 relative to Singaporean Grade 4 learners. It contributes in three key ways. Firstly, it focuses on the under-researched area of early mathematics learning in Early Childhood Education (ECE), encompassing both formal and informal approaches, which aim to establish basic mathematics skills. Second, it disaggregates performance across content and cognitive domains to identify specific patterns of strength and weakness. Third, it links these results to curriculum and pedagogical implications, proposing strategies to strengthen basic knowledge, geometry teaching, and teacher professional development. The study was guided by the following research questions: Research questions 1. What are the patterns of South African Grade 5 learners’ performance across the TIMSS 2023 mathematics content domains (numbers, measurement and geometry, and data), and how do these compare with Singaporean Grade 4 learners? 2. How do South African learners perform across the TIMSS 2023 cognitive domains (Knowing, Applying, and Reasoning), and what specific strengths and weaknesses are revealed in comparison with Singapore? 3. What curriculum and pedagogical implications can be drawn from the comparative analysis of domain-specific and cognitive performance to inform strategies for improving mathematics achievement in South Africa? Literature review: Comparative analysis of South African and Singaporean grade 5 mathematics achievement Benchmarking with TIMSS 2023 The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) serves as an international benchmark to evaluate the mathematical learner achievement of both primary and secondary school learners. Singapore was consistently ranked as the top achiever, with learners assessed at Grade 4 achieving an overall average of 615 points, while South Africa, assessed at Grade 5, scored 362 points. This means that Singaporean learners who are on average a year younger still outperform South African learners by more than 250 points ( von Davier et al., 2024 ). The magnitude of this achievement gap underscores the need to analyse not just overall scores but also performances across content domains (numbers, measurements, geometry, and data) and cognitive domains (knowing, applying, and reasoning) to understand how curricula and teaching practices shape outcomes. Curriculum alignment and content domains Singapore’s mathematical curriculum is internationally recognised for its coherence and spiral structure, which involves systematically revisiting concepts at increasing levels of complexity. In TIMSS 2023, Singapore scored 613 in numbers, 619 in measurement and geometry, and 616 in data, while South Africa scored 362, 353, and 362, respectively. Maqoqa (2024) and Tachie (2020) reported that the largest achievement gap is in measurement and geometry (266 points), an area long identified as a “blind spot” in South African classrooms. These gaps suggest that South African learners struggle with reasoning and geometric domains, while Singaporean learners benefit from early exposure to concrete manipulatives, reasoning, and visual models that build conceptual skills and knowledge. Cognitive demands: Knowing, applying, and reasoning TIMSS distinguishes between three cognitive domains: knowing, applying, and reasoning. Singapore’s Grade 4 learners achieved 624 in knowing, 615 in applying, and 609 in reasoning, whereas South Africa’s Grade 5 learners scored 357, 366, and 363. This result reveals a profound weakness in knowing (–267 points compared to Singapore), which reflects learners’ difficulties with knowing domains. South African learners performed slightly better in the applying domain (366) relative to their average, suggesting that when knowledge is available, learners can engage in routine applications. The reasoning domain, on the other hand, shows a persistent weakness. This means that South African learners are not being prepared for non-routine, multi-step problem-solving tasks, which is a strong point of the Singaporean system. Instructional and structural factors Several systemic factors reinforce these disparities. According to Meier and West (2020) , South Africa’s classrooms often suffer from overcrowding, with class sizes averaging over 50 learners, which hinders formative feedback and personalised support. Teacher content and pedagogical knowledge remain uneven, particularly in geometry and measurement ( Bhagwonparsadh & Pule, 2024 ; Taylor, 2021 ). In contrast, Singapore invests heavily in sustained teacher development, smaller class sizes, and instructional leadership, creating a conducive learning environment where consistent teaching and learning take place. Furthermore, although South Africa’s curriculum aims for comprehensive coverage, it has faced criticism for being “overloaded” and not allowing adequate time for the mastery of fundamental skills ( Milne & Mhlolo, 2021 ). By contrast, Singapore’s Concrete–Pictorial–Abstract (CPA) approach deliberately scaffolds learning so that conceptual understanding precedes abstraction, enabling a positive learner achievement in higher-order reasoning ( Leong et al., 2015 ; Lutfi & Dasari, 2024 ). Curriculum–Cognitive alignment in International research International evidence further illustrates how disparities between curriculum objectives and classroom practices shape academic learner achievement. Yılmaz et al. (2021) found that, while mathematics curricula emphasised reasoning, textbook activities leaned more toward application, creating a mismatch between intended and taught cognitive emphases. Similarly, Bulut and Taşpınar-şener (2023) reported that the application domain is most frequently prioritised in the secondary mathematics curriculum, disregarding the ECE curriculum, whereas the emphasis placed on knowledge and reasoning differs across grade levels. In primary schools, Pertiwi and Wahidin (2020) showed that fourth-grade assessments are dominated by number-related content, with far less attention given to geometry or data activities. These results reflect TIMSS’s framework, where knowing entails factual recall and procedural fluency, applying involves transferring knowledge to structured contexts, and reasoning requires non-routine problem-solving and critical thinking ( Peduk & Ateş, 2019 ). Importantly, the study also found that content domains exert a more positive effect on mathematics learner achievement than cognitive domains. This body of research provides an explanatory lens for South Africa’s TIMSS 2023 mathematics learner achievement. The relative strengths of South African Grade 5 learners in the application domain, alongside persistent weaknesses in knowledge and reasoning, reflect the misalignment noted by several studies internationally, where instruction and textbooks emphasise routine application but fail to develop the basic knowledge and reasoning capacity required for learner progression. In contrast, Singapore’s balanced curriculum and pedagogy demonstrate how alignment across content and cognitive domains fosters sustained learner achievement. TIMSS: A diagnostic instrument TIMSS offers a diagnostic lens to evaluate the effectiveness of the current curriculum and teaching practices, rather than viewing the legacies of apartheid inequalities as the main reason for the ongoing poor achievement in mathematics among learners. The comparative analysis with Singapore illustrates that South Africa’s curriculum is aligned superficially in content but misaligned in cognitive expectations, particularly at the levels of knowing and reasoning. This mismatch leaves learners underprepared for both academic progression and broader applications of mathematics in their everyday lives. The fact that Singapore’s Grade 4 learners significantly outperform South Africa’s Grade 5 learners further shows that the gap in mathematics achievement among learners is not simply attributable to learner age or exposure but to differences in curriculum coherence, cognitive scaffolding, and teacher training and development. The TIMSS 2023 results highlight not just the scale of South Africa’s underperformance but also its domain-specific and cognitive weaknesses. While Singapore demonstrates how curriculum coherence and sustained teacher training and development can support an understanding of teaching and learning across content and cognitive domains, South Africa’s challenges are rooted in weak foundations, gaps in geometry and measurement, and systemic barriers in teacher training, development, and the classroom environment. Addressing these challenges requires targeted curriculum reforms in ECE, early-grade numeracy, curriculum streamlining, and teacher professional development, with a particular emphasis on geometry, critical thinking (reasoning), and basic knowledge. Context-sensitive adaptations, rather than comprehensive importation of Singapore’s model, offer a pathway for South Africa to strengthen learner trajectories in mathematics. Conceptual framework This study was guided by the TIMSS conceptual model, which distinguishes between mathematical content domains (numbers, measurement, geometry, and data) and cognitive domains (knowing, applying, and reasoning) ( Mullis et al., 2020 ). These dual dimensions provide a diagnostic lens for understanding not only what mathematics learners are expected to know but also how they engage with mathematical activities in the classroom. Therefore, the researcher can investigate South Africa’s historically poor mathematics learner achievement by identifying specific weaknesses in basic knowledge (knowing), conceptual understanding (applying), and higher-order reasoning. To explain these disparities, the study draws on curriculum alignment theory, which emphasises coherence between curricular intentions, classroom practices, and assessment demands ( Porter, 2002 ). High-performing education systems such as Singapore demonstrate strong alignment through a spiral curriculum that revisits concepts at increasing levels of complexity supported by the Concrete–Pictorial–Abstract (CPA) approach that scaffolds learning from concrete manipulatives to abstract reasoning ( Leong et al., 2015 ; Lutfi & Dasari, 2024 ). In contrast, research in South Africa highlights curriculum overload, insufficient time for mastery of basic domains, and persistent weaknesses in geometry and spatial reasoning, exacerbated by gaps in teacher content knowledge ( Maqoqa, 2024 ; Taylor, 2021 ). Situating South Africa’s Grade 5 TIMSS 2023 results against Singapore’s Grade 4 performance thus allows for a comparative curriculum lens that identifies both where South African learners struggle most and how Singapore’s curriculum scaffolds progression from knowledge to application and reasoning. To guide this analysis, the study therefore adopted an integrative conceptual framework that combines the Comparative Lens (South Africa versus Singapore, considered at macro, meso, and micro levels) with the TIMSS Curriculum Model (distinguishing intended, implemented, and attained curricula, as well as content and cognitive domains) ( Alemu et al., 2021 ; Mullis et al., 2020 ) and Curriculum Theory Dimensions (alignment, spiral progression, CPA scaffolding as described by Lutfi and Dasari (2024) , and Grundy’s (1992) product–process–praxis–context typology). Together, these components ensure that the framework is both diagnostic, by mapping learner strengths and weaknesses, and explanatory, by linking performance to curriculum and pedagogy, while also generating practical insights for educational reform. Figure 1 illustrates this integrative conceptual framework, showing how the comparative, curricular, and theoretical dimensions interact to guide the study’s analysis. Figure 1. Adapted conceptual framework combining the comparative lens, TIMSS curriculum model, and curriculum theory dimensions guiding the study. Building on this conceptual framework, the study’s methodology was designed to operationalise these dimensions through an analysis of the TIMSS 2023 data. The TIMSS curriculum model provided the basis for investigating both content and cognitive domains, while the comparative lens allowed for benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners against Singaporean Grade 4 learners. Curriculum theory informed the interpretive aspect of the analysis by connecting observed performance trends to overarching concerns of curriculum alignment, learner advancement, and pedagogical practices. The following section outlines the research design, participants, data collection, analytical strategy, and ethical considerations employed in this study. Methodology Research design This study employed a quantitative secondary data analysis design, using data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023. This design is particularly appropriate for investigating the mathematics achievement of South African Grade 5 learners across content and cognitive domains for several reasons. First, TIMSS provides a large, internationally standardised dataset that is both rigorous in design and nationally representative, making it suitable for examining learners’ performance patterns with a high degree of reliability. Second, secondary analysis enables the use of TIMSS’s robust psychometric procedures, including item response theory and plausible values, which strengthen the validity of inferences about learners’ achievement. Third, the TIMSS framework allows for meaningful international benchmarking, making it possible to situate South Africa’s performance in relation to high-performing education systems such as Singapore. Guided by the TIMSS assessment framework, the analysis focused on three content domains (numbers, measurement, geometry, and data) and three cognitive domains (knowing, applying, and reasoning). This two-fold focus not only enabled a diagnostic assessment of learners’ strengths and weaknesses within the South African context but also provided comparative insights to inform curriculum and policy reform globally. Participants The South African Grade 5 sample for TIMSS 2023 consisted of approximately 10,424 learners drawn from 285 schools ( Department of Basic Education, 2024 ), while Singapore sampled 6530 Grade 4 learners from 181 schools ( von Davier et al., 2024 ). The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), in collaboration with Statistics Canada, utilised a two-stage stratified cluster sampling methodology to guarantee nationally representative estimates ( Siegel & Foy, 2024 ). In the first stage, schools were selected with probabilities proportional to their size, and in the second stage, intact Grade 5 classes were sampled. The stratification variables included the school sector (public or private), the language of instruction, the geographic region, socioeconomic indicators, the degree of urbanisation, and prior academic achievements (Ibid.). This rigorous design ensured that the results accurately reflect the diversity of the South African education system and provide robust population-level estimates of learner performance. Data collection and analysis Learners completed mathematics assessments together with contextual background questionnaires. The TIMSS mathematics achievement is measured on a scale with a standard deviation of 100 and an international centre point of 500, which makes it possible to make valid comparisons between countries. According to Reynolds (2024) , the mathematics assessment comprised 183 items distributed across the three content domains (numbers: 94 items; measurement and geometry: 49 items; data: 40 items) and three cognitive domains (knowing: 58 items; applying: 85 items; reasoning: 40 items). Each student took one test booklet, and the results were estimated using item response theory and reported as plausible values ( von Davier, 2019 ). This design ensures reliable population-level estimates while reducing respondent burden. The analysis concentrated on South Africa’s Grade 5 results, using Singapore’s Grade 4 outcomes as a benchmark to emphasise comparative mathematics learner achievement. Weighted descriptive statistics were computed according to IEA guidelines for handling complex sampling. These weights take into account the hierarchical structure of TIMSS, which makes sure that the estimates are not biassed at the national level ( Siegel & Foy, 2024 ). Differences in performance across domains were tested for statistical significance at p < 0.01. In addition, effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) were calculated to assess the practical significance of observed gaps between content and cognitive domains and between South Africa and Singapore. This combination of statistical significance and effect size estimation provided a more profound understanding of performance trends. Ethical considerations This study is based on secondary analysis of TIMSS 2023 restricted-use datasets provided by the IEA. The data contain no personal identifiers and were collected under strict international ethical protocols during the original administration. Because this research involved secondary analysis of anonymised data, no institutional ethics approval was required. There was no formal request to use the dataset from the IEA since the data is available in the public domain, and all analyses adhered to its guidelines for responsible data use. Results Content domain achievement Table 1 reports the mean scores for South African Grade 5 learners and Singaporean Grade 4 learners across the three TIMSS mathematics content domains. The results reveal consistently lower learner achievement for South Africa across all three areas, with the largest gap evident in measurement and geometry. This persistent weakness in spatial reasoning reflects long-standing challenges in South African classrooms and emphasises the need for targeted curricula and pedagogical reforms in this domain that are context-sensitive. Table 1. Mean scale scores and effect sizes in mathematics content domains, TIMSS 2023. Content domain Singapore (Grade 4) South Africa (Grade 5) Gap Cohen’s d Numbers 613 362 251 2.51 Measurement & Geometry 619 353 266 2.66 Data 616 362 254 2.54 All three domains reveal large effect sizes ( d > 2.5), signifying profound disparities. The most pronounced gap lies in Measurement and Geometry ( d = 2.66), confirming that South African learners face persistent difficulties in spatial reasoning and geometric concepts. Cognitive domain achievement Table 2 presents performance across the TIMSS cognitive domains. The results show that South African learners are much less knowledgeable than their Singaporean peers in all three areas. The biggest difference is in the knowing domain. This result points to fragile foundations in knowing domain, which limit learners’ ability to advance toward higher-order reasoning activities. Although performance in the applying domain is relatively positive, it remains well below international benchmarks, suggesting that gains in procedural applications are insufficient without deeper conceptual mastery. Table 2. Mean scale scores and effect sizes in mathematics cognitive domains, TIMSS 2023. Cognitive domain Singapore (Grade 4) South Africa (Grade 5) Gap Cohen’s d Knowing 624 357 267 2.67 Applying 615 366 249 2.49 Reasoning 609 363 246 2.46 The knowing domain shows the largest gap ( d = 2.67), underscoring fragile foundations in factual knowledge and procedural fluency. South African learners’ relatively positive achievement in applying (366) suggests that when basic knowledge is accessible, learners can engage with routine procedures. However, the consistent deficits across domains indicate that foundational gaps constrain progression to reasoning tasks, where Singaporean learners excel. Item-level illustrations To illustrate the cognitive demands underlying these results, examples from released TIMSS items are useful. In the knowing domain (numbers), more than 90% of Singaporean learners were able to recall multiplication facts correctly, while fewer than 40% of South African learners were able to do the same. This shows that there are big gaps in basic fact fluency. In the applying domain (data), routine tasks such as interpreting a simple bar chart were accessible to many South African learners, suggesting some competence with structured and familiar problems. However, in the reasoning domain (geometry), where items demanded multi-step reasoning with angles, most Singaporean learners responded correctly compared to fewer than 20% of South African learners, reflecting limited exposure to non-routine problem-solving beyond procedural recall. Collectively, these examples highlight how curriculum exposure and classroom instructional practices shape learners’ preparedness to engage with domain-specific cognitive demands. Visualising the gaps Figure 2 illustrates the comparative performance of South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners across the three TIMSS content domains. The visualisation confirms the consistently lower achievement of South African learners, with the largest gap observed in measurement and geometry. This finding supports the tabulated results and highlights the ongoing challenges that South African learners encounter in spatial reasoning and geometric concepts. By presenting the disparities graphically, Figure 2 highlights the structural nature of these weaknesses and the extent to which curriculum design and instructional practices shape domain-specific performance. Figure 2. Comparative performance of South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners across TIMSS content domains (Numbers, Measurement & Geometry, and Data). Figure 3 presents the comparative performance of South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners across the TIMSS cognitive domains. The figure makes clear that the widest disparity lies in the knowing domain, where South African learners demonstrate severe deficits in foundational knowledge and procedural fluency. While relative performance in applying appears slightly positive, it remains far below international benchmarks, limiting progress to more complex reasoning. These results show how gaps in basic knowledge can lead to fewer chances for higher-order thinking. On the other hand, Singapore’s curriculum scaffolding helps all three cognitive domains grow in a balanced way. Figure 3. Comparative performance of South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners across TIMSS cognitive domains (Knowing, Applying, and Reasoning). Summary of results The results of the analysis highlight three critical insights into South African learners’ mathematics achievement. First, geometry and spatial reasoning continue to represent the weakest domain, pointing to enduring structural gaps in both curriculum design and teacher preparation. Second, the severity of deficits in foundational knowledge, reflected in the knowing domain, restricts learners from progressing toward higher-order reasoning tasks. Third, although learners demonstrate relatively positive learner achievement in the applying domain, this potential remains constrained by the absence of solid basic skills and limited opportunities for reasoning skills, which prevents the development of sustained mathematical learner achievement. Collectively, these results suggest that South Africa’s performance challenges are not incidental but rather systematic, domain-specific, and deeply embedded in pedagogical practices. In contrast, the comparison with Singapore emphasises the value of curriculum coherence and deliberate cognitive scaffolding for supporting learners’ steady progression across domains. Discussion The TIMSS 2023 results reaffirm that South African Grade 5 learners perform significantly below the international mathematics benchmark, achieving a mean score of 362 compared with the centre point of 500. While this overall result underscores persistent systemic challenges, disaggregating performance across content and cognitive domains provides a more diagnostic understanding of where learning gaps emerge and how they shape curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher preparation. At the content level , learner performance in Number and Data suggests partial competence in basic computation and routine interpretation tasks. However, the marked deficit in measurement and geometry exposes structural barriers to developing spatial reasoning and conceptual understanding. These results confirm earlier evidence that geometry remains a “blind spot” in South African classrooms, often attributed to weak pedagogical content knowledge, crowded curricula, and limited use of concrete or visual learning tools ( Maqoqa, 2024 ; Taylor, 2019 , 2021 ). Pedagogically, early mathematics instruction continues to privilege procedural accuracy over conceptual exploration. Empowering teachers to adopt visual, contextual, and manipulative-based approaches through dynamic geometry software, outdoor measurement tasks, and locally available materials could enhance conceptual understanding and promote more profound learning. At the cognitive level , the most critical weakness lies in the Knowing domain, where South African learners performed substantially below their Singaporean peers (357 vs 624). This indicates fragile mastery of basic facts, operations, and recall skills that form the foundation for higher-order reasoning. Consequently, learners struggle to transition from applying to reasoning, resulting in a cycle where weak early-grade foundations inhibit advanced problem-solving. The comparatively stronger performance in applying suggests that learners can transfer knowledge to routine contexts when concepts are well taught, but limited exposure to non-routine, exploratory activities constrains reasoning development. The cross-national contrast with Singapore illustrates the value of systemic alignment. Singapore’s curriculum exhibits strong internal coherence, guided by the Concrete–Pictorial–Abstract (CPA) model and a spiral structure that reinforces conceptual progression ( Leong et al., 2015 ). In contrast, South Africa’s curriculum spreads content thinly across grades, sacrificing depth. Uneven teacher preparation and large class sizes further undermine instructional consistency. Consistent with Curriculum Alignment Theory ( Porter, 2002 ), effective learning requires harmony between curriculum intent, classroom enactment, and assessment expectations. The misalignment in South Africa is evident: policy frameworks prioritise reasoning and conceptual understanding, yet classroom practice still heavily relies on rote learning and procedural repetition. Addressing this misalignment demands integrated reform that connects curriculum, pedagogy, and professional learning. Teacher development programmes should emphasise diagnostic assessment, conceptual teaching of geometry, and scaffolding of reasoning through open-ended questioning and collaborative tasks. School-level supports such as instructional coaching and communities of practice can facilitate the translation of curriculum goals into classroom realities. The results present a dual challenge: (1) foundational gaps in number sense, fluency, and spatial reasoning require systematic attention; and (2) learners’ relative strength in application should be leveraged as a pathway toward reasoning and higher-order thinking. Sustainable progress will depend on coherent interventions that coordinate curriculum design, professional development, and classroom innovation. Without such alignment, improvements in application will remain fragmented, limiting advancement toward deeper mathematical reasoning and STEM readiness. Differentiation from previous research Most South African studies using TIMSS data focus on Grade 9, highlighting long-term inequalities and secondary-level deficits. This study’s focus on Grade 5 performance adds novel evidence at the stage when foundational mathematical concepts are consolidated and future trajectories are set. By disaggregating results across content and cognitive domains, it reveals early learning disparities that aggregate reports often obscure. The comparative lens with Singapore enhances interpretive depth by demonstrating how curriculum alignment, pedagogical scaffolding, and teacher preparation in high-performing systems cultivate balanced cognitive development. Thus, this paper contributes grade-specific, comparative evidence that complements rather than duplicates existing analyses, offering practical insights for foundational-phase teacher education and classroom reform. Policy and practice implications The TIMSS 2023 results demonstrate that socioeconomic and systemic inequalities, which directly manifest in classroom practice, entrench South Africa’s mathematics challenges ( Taylor, 2019 ). Learners in Quintile 1–3 schools, serving the poorest communities, often face overcrowded classrooms, resource scarcity, and underqualified teachers. These conditions constrain formative assessment, differentiated instruction, and sustained skill development. Although pro-poor funding policies provide some redress, resources remain inadequate to counter entrenched disparities. Drawing comparative insights from Singapore while contextualising them for South Africa, this study proposes three interrelated pillars of reform, anchored in teachers’ daily practice. Pillar 1: Strengthening foundations through diagnostic teaching Persistent deficits in the knowing domain indicate that many learners progress without mastering number facts, place value, and basic operations. Policy should prioritise early diagnostic assessments in Grades 1–3 to identify learning gaps before they widen. Schools, particularly in low-SES contexts, could implement structured catch-up programmes modelled on Singapore’s Learning Support Programme, adapted for multilingual and resource-limited settings. Professional development in formative assessment and error analysis will enable teachers to translate diagnostic data into responsive teaching. Dedicated funding for remedial support staff, small-group tutors, and low-cost learning materials would operationalise this pillar at the school level. Pillar 2: Enhancing geometry and spatial reasoning through pedagogical innovation Measurement and geometry remain the weakest domains, highlighting persistent gaps in spatial reasoning. Professional learning programmes should therefore emphasise visual, experiential, and problem-based approaches to geometry. In resource-constrained schools, teachers can employ locally available materials, outdoor activities, and hand-drawn representations to cultivate geometric understanding. Over time, they can be complemented by affordable digital visualisation tools. Embedding spatial reasoning modules in pre-service and in-service teacher training will institutionalise these practices across the system. Pillar 3: Leveraging learners’ strength in applying to cultivate reasoning The relatively stronger The relatively stronger performance in the Applying category provides an opportunity to foster deeper reasoning. Curriculum reform should integrate contextually relevant problem-solving tasks drawn from everyday experiences, such as budgeting or community-based measurement activities, to enhance engagement and conceptual transfer. Teachers should be supported to design inquiry-based lessons that promote explanation, justification, and collaboration. District-level mentoring and professional learning communities can help disseminate and sustain these pedagogical innovations. System-level coherence: Linking policy, curriculum, and classroom practice The effectiveness of these pillars depends on systemic coherence from early childhood education through the intermediate phase. Singapore’s ongoing progress shows that real change happens when policy goals, teacher training, classroom practice, and assessment design all work together. Accordingly, South Africa’s Department of Basic Education must integrate curriculum reform with continuous professional development, accountability structures, and resource provision. Reducing class sizes, ensuring consistent access to learning materials, and strengthening school-based mentoring will translate curriculum goals into meaningful learning. Ultimately, bridging policy and practice requires recognising teachers as the primary agents of change. When professional learning, curriculum design, and resourcing converge around clear pedagogical objectives, early mathematics education can evolve from procedural instruction toward conceptual understanding, advancing equitable foundational learning in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG-4): Quality Education. Conclusion This study analysed South African Grade 5 learners’ mathematics achievement in TIMSS 2023, disaggregated by content and cognitive domains and benchmarked against Singapore’s Grade 4 performance. The results confirm earlier research ( Mabena et al., 2021 ; Taylor, 2021 ) that South Africa continues to perform well below international benchmarks, with particularly severe weaknesses in measurement and geometry and in the knowing domain. These persistent gaps reflect deep structural inequities within the education system, rooted in socioeconomic disparities, uneven teacher preparation, and limited curriculum coherence. Encouragingly, learners’ relatively stronger performance in the applying domain demonstrates their ability to transfer knowledge to routine problem-solving contexts when they understand foundational concepts well. This strength provides a critical entry point for instructional improvement and curriculum redesign, which emphasises conceptual understanding. Building on these insights, the study proposes a reform agenda centred on strengthening foundational knowledge through early diagnostic assessment and catch-up programs; enhancing geometry and spatial reasoning through sustained professional development focused on visualisation and conceptual teaching; and leveraging learners’ ability to apply knowledge by embedding authentic, context-based problem-solving tasks that bridge procedural fluency and higher-order reasoning. The coherence of curriculum design, teacher education, classroom practice, and assessment determines the effectiveness of these reforms. Drawing on Curriculum Alignment Theory ( Kulasegaram et al., 2018 ; Pinar, 2019 ; Porter, 2002 ), reform succeeds when the intended, implemented, and achieved curricula reinforce one another. Achieving such coherence requires long-term investment in teacher learning communities, instructional coaching, and equitable support for schools in low-socioeconomic contexts. Combining curriculum refinement with sustained teacher development and adequate resourcing can transform early mathematics instruction from rote learning to conceptual reasoning. The Department of Basic Education (2018) and Costello et al. (2020) both say that teaching basic skills along with transversal skills like problem-solving, critical thinking, and working together leads to more creative and fair mathematics learning. Taken together, these results suggest that lasting improvement in mathematics achievement will emerge not from isolated interventions but from continuous professional learning and pedagogical innovation that connect national policy with classroom practice and advance Sustainable Development Goal 4 on quality education. Limitations and future research Although this research offers invaluable information about South African Grade 5 mathematics achievement, several limitations warrant acknowledgement. First, the analysis relied on secondary, cross-sectional data from TIMSS 2023, which precludes causal inference. The observed associations among content and cognitive domains should therefore be interpreted as correlational rather than causal. Policymakers often operate under conditions of incomplete information that may lead to suboptimal decisions ( Byman, 2024 ); hence, the results should inform but not overdetermine policy responses. Second, the domain-specific subscales, such as knowing and measurement and geometry, are based on fewer test items than the overall mathematics scale, introducing potential measurement errors and limiting precision. Although the use of plausible values enhances population-level reliability, it also introduces statistical uncertainty that must be considered when interpreting effect sizes. Third, the use of secondary data restricts the ability to examine classroom processes, teaching strategies, and learner experiences that influence achievement. Without qualitative or longitudinal evidence, it remains difficult to capture how curriculum intentions are enacted or how learners engage with mathematical tasks in practice. This limitation points to the need for mixed-methods research that integrates large-scale assessment data with classroom observations, teacher interviews, and learner case studies. Fourth, while the TIMSS sampling design ensures national representativeness, it may under-represent learners in marginalised or rural settings where multi-grade teaching, language mismatches, and severe resource shortages persist. Future research should therefore include oversampling or targeted case studies in these contexts to illuminate how systemic inequities shape foundational learning. Future inquiry should extend this work through design-based and experimental studies that align with the reform framework articulated here. Pilot interventions could evaluate the effectiveness of early diagnostic assessments and structured catch-up programmes in low-SES schools, assessing whether they narrow foundational knowledge gaps. Classroom-based investigations could examine how educators integrate cost-effective geometry and reasoning activities, with or without digital tools, to enhance spatial and cognitive development. Further, experimental and longitudinal designs could examine how embedding authentic, real-life application tasks influences learners’ problem-solving and reasoning abilities. Such research would not only address the limitations of cross-sectional secondary data but also provide empirical evidence to guide curriculum reform, teacher education, and policy innovation aimed at improving mathematics achievement and equity in South Africa. Declaration of AI use The author affirms that no generative artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT or similar models) were used to produce the academic content, analysis, or interpretations presented in this manuscript. QuillBot (premium) was employed solely for grammar and spelling checks. The author personally reviewed and edited the final manuscript and takes full responsibility for its content and conclusions. Data availability The data that support the results of this article are derived from the publicly accessible Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 database, available through the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) at https://timssandpirls.bc.edu . Derived and processed data underlying the statistical analyses, including the variables used to generate the tables, figures, and descriptive statistics presented in this article, are openly available in the Zenodo repository ( Mokgwathi, 2025 ) at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17379412 , under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. These files include anonymised values underlying the means, standard deviations, and effect sizes, as well as detailed variable descriptions and methodological notes supporting replication of the comparative analyses between South Africa (Grade 5) and Singapore (Grade 4). No ethical approval or participant consent was required, as all data originate from secondary sources that are publicly available through the IEA TIMSS 2023 repository. Extended data Supplementary materials supporting this article are available in the Zenodo repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17379412 ( Mokgwathi, 2025 ), under the CC BY 4.0 license . These include: TIMSS2023_SGvZA_Derived_Dataset.xlsx (domain-level statistics and effect sizes), TIMSS2023_Variable_Descriptions.xlsx (variable definitions and sources), and TIMSS2023_Supplementary_Notes.pdf (methodological documentation). Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) for making the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 data publicly available and appreciates its continued commitment to advancing educational research globally. References Alemu M, Kind V, Basheh M, et al. : The knowledge gap between intended and attained curriculum in Ethiopian teacher education: identifying challenges for future development. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2021; 51 (1): 81–98. Publisher Full Text Bhagwonparsadh Y, Pule K: The Effects of Educators’ Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge on The Mentoring of Grade 12 Students Using Problem-Based Learning. Journal of Culture and Values in Education. 2024; 7 (1): 99–117. Publisher Full Text Bulut AS, Taşpınar-şener Z: Analysis of Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum Learning Outcomes by TIMSS-2019 Cognitive Domain Skills. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi (TAY Journal). 2023; 7 (1): 303–328. Publisher Full Text Byman D: Writing policy recommendations for academic journals: A guide for the perplexed. Int. Secur. 2024; 48 (4): 137–166. Publisher Full Text Choy BH, Dindyal J: The Singapore mathematics curriculum: Influences and confluences. Research Handbook on Curriculum and Education. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2024; pp. 534–549. Costello E, Girme P, McKnight M, et al. : Government responses to the challenge of STEM education: Case studies from Europe. European Schoolnet; 2020. Department of Basic Education: Mathematics Teaching and Learning Framework for South Africa: Teaching Mathematics for Understanding. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education; 2018. Department of Basic Education: South Africa 2023 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Highlights Report. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education; 2024. Grundy S: Beyond guaranteed outcomes: Creating a discourse for educational praxis. Aust. J. Educ. 1992; 36 (2): 157–169. Publisher Full Text Johnson CE, Boon HJ, Dinan Thompson M: Curriculum Alignment After Reforms: A Systematic Review with Considerations for Queensland Pre- and In-service Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 45 (11): 34–55. Publisher Full Text Kulasegaram K, Mylopoulos M, Tonin P, et al. : The alignment imperative in curriculum renewal. Med. Teach. 2018; 40 (5): 443–448. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Leong YH, Ho WK, Cheng LP: Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract: Surveying its origins and charting its future. Math. Educ. 2015; 16 (1): 1–18. Reference Source Low L, Wong LF: Using connecting mathematical tasks for coherence, connections and continuity. MATHEMATICS—CONNECTION AND BEYOND: Yearbook 2020 Association of Mathematics Educators. 2021; pp. 95–120. Lutfi JS, Dasari D: Research trends on learning mathematics with the CPA (Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract) approach. PRism. 2024; 13 (1): 103–112. Publisher Full Text Mabena N, Mokgosi PN, Ramapela SS: Factors contributing to poor learner performance in mathematics: A case of selected schools in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. Problems of Education in the 21st Century. 2021; 79 (3): 451–466. Publisher Full Text Maqoqa T: An exploration of learners’ understanding of Euclidean geometric concepts: A case study of secondary schools in the OR Tambo Inland District of the Eastern Cape. E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. 2024; 5 (5): 658–675. Publisher Full Text Meier C, West J: Overcrowded classrooms–the Achilles heel of South African education? South African Journal of Childhood Education. 2020; 10 (1): 1–10. Mensah E, Baidoo-Anu D: Towards quality and equitable education in South Africa: Unpacking the relationship between teacher factors, students’ socioeconomic background and mathematics achievements. Research in Mathematics. 2022; 9 (1): 2088645. Publisher Full Text Milne A, Mhlolo M: Lessons for South Africa from Singapore’s gifted education–A comparative study. S. Afr. J. Educ. 2021; 41 (1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text Mokgwathi MS: Derived Data and Extended Tables: TIMSS 2023 South Africa–Singapore Mathematics Comparison (1.0). [Data set]. Zenodo. 2025. Publisher Full Text Morony W: Coherence in a range of mathematics curriculum reforms. Mathematics Curriculum Reforms Around the World: The 24th ICMI Study. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023; pp. 127–150. Mullis IVS, Martin MO, Foy P, et al. : TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2020. Peduk B, Ateş Ö: Analysis of the Science Course Curriculum Objectives and High School Entrance Examination Questions According to TIMSS Framework.2019; 5 (3): 433–449. Pertiwi A, Wahidin W: Are the mathematics textbooks for eighth-grade meet the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2019 mathematics framework? Edumatika: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika. 2020; 3 (2): 129–135. Publisher Full Text Pinar WF: What is curriculum theory? Routledge; 2019. Porter AC: Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educ. Res. 2002; 31 (7): 3–14. Publisher Full Text Reddy V, Hannan S: TIMSS in South Africa: Making global research locally meaningful. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council; 2019. Retrieved August, 25. Reynolds KA: Updating the TIMSS instruments for describing contexts of student learning. von Davier M , Fishbein B, Kennedy A, editors. TIMSS 2023 Technical Report (Methods and Procedures). Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2024; pp. 2.1–2.8. Siegel P, Foy P: TIMSS sample design. von Davier M , Fishbein B, Kennedy A, editors. TIMSS 2023 Technical Report (Methods and Procedures). Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2024; pp. 3.1–3.30. Publisher Full Text Tachie SA: The challenges of South African teachers in teaching Euclidean geometry. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2020; 19 (8): 297–312. Publisher Full Text Taylor N: Inequalities in teacher knowledge in South Africa. South African schooling: The enigma of inequality: A study of the present situation and future possibilities. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019; pp. 263–282. Taylor N: The dream of sisyphus: Mathematics education in South Africa. South African Journal of Childhood Education. 2021; 11 (1): 1–12. Publisher Full Text von Davier M : TIMSS 2019 scaling methodology: Item response theory, population models, and linking across modes. Methods and procedures: TIMSS. 2019; 11–11. von Davier M , Kennedy A, Reynolds K, et al. : TIMSS 2023 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center; 2024. Yılmaz N, Ay Z, Aydın Ş: An Investigation of tasks in the mathematics textbooks and objectives in mathematics curriculum from 4th to 8th grade related with data content domain according to TIMSS 2019 cognitive domains. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal. 2021; 50 (2): 1397–1436. Publisher Full Text Zuze L, Reddy V, Visser M, et al. : TIMSS 2015 Grade 9 national report: Understanding mathematics and achievement amongst Grade 9 learners in South Africa.2018. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 05 Nov 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, Gauteng, 0003, South Africa Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 03 Apr 2026, 14:1209 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.3 version 2 Revised Published: 28 Jan 2026, 14:1209 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.2 version 1 Published: 05 Nov 2025, 14:1209 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.1 Copyright © 2025 Mokgwathi MS. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Mokgwathi MS. Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172015.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 05 Nov 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: O'CONNOR MKM. Reviewer Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435305 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1#referee-response-435305 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025 MARGUERITE KHAKASA MIHESO O'CONNOR , Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435305 Review report Introduction The article addresses an important and timely question in mathematics education: domain-specific patterns of achievement in TIMSS 2023, comparing South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners. The topic is relevant and well grounded providing an opportunity for ... Continue reading READ ALL Review report Introduction The article addresses an important and timely question in mathematics education: domain-specific patterns of achievement in TIMSS 2023, comparing South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners. The topic is relevant and well grounded providing an opportunity for policy and practice impact in South Africa and the wider Sub-Saharan region. The research purpose and alignment with TIMSS conceptual frameworks are quite clear. Descriptive statistical analysis and accurate identification of domain-specific weaknesses is evident. There is observed an effective use of TIMSS as an international benchmark to highlight systemic performance gaps. The integration of literature from both high-performing (Singapore) and lower-performing (South Africa) systems is provided in a coherent narrative that links content and cognitive deficits to curriculum and instructional factors. However several conceptual and methodological limitations which currently reduce the manuscript’s rigor. have been identified. Revisions are required, particularly in theoretical framing, TIMSS- specific methodology, and the depth of interpretation and contextualization. Some minor corrections have also been identified for authors attention for proof reading The following observations have been made and related. action points suggested for consideration A): Presentation The article is generally well structured, articulate, and contextually grounded. The introduction to the article provides a clear rationale for focusing on South African primary mathematics achievement using TIMSS 2023 and situates the work within persistent national under performance. The performance gap (- 250 points) between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners is clearly stated and framed as a systemic issue rather than a purely learner-level deficit. The need to move beyond overall scores to content and cognitive domain analysis is well argued and aligned with TIMSS reporting structures. In addition, the contribution of the study, especially the focus on Grade 5 as an under-researched phase relative to Grade 9, is well articulated The following issues were noted in the presentation The rationale of benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners against Singaporean Grade 4 learners though methodologically common in TIMSS is not well explained. The clarification of why Singapore Grade 4 is used as a comparator is necessary . Secondly ,the article introduces and sustains a misaligned reference to Early Childhood Education (ECE). This introduction at one point frames the work as focusing on Early Childhood Education, which is conceptually inaccurate for TIMSS Grade 5. Grade 5 sits in the primary/intermediate phase, not ECE.. In addition, the conceptual rationale for the theoretical framing of content and cognitive domains did not recognize frameworks such as: TIMSS assessment framework, Kilpatrick et al.’s strands of mathematical proficiency and theories of cognitive demand and learning progression,. Finally, there is need to clarify the research gap. It is stated that Grade 5 and domain-specific analyses are under-researched, but this gap is not supported by specific citations and a brief synthesis of existing work.. As a result, the author is encouraged to Action as follows Clearly justify the benchmarking of South Africa Grade 5 against Singapore Grade 4. Remove or revise all references to ECE; and use more accurate terms Strengthen theoretical framing by linking content and cognitive domains to recognized frameworks (e.g., mathematical proficiency, cognitive demand, learning trajectories). Clarify the research gap with citations that show the relative neglect of Grade 5 and domain-specific analyses. Streamline the introduction by reducing redundant statements and improving paragraph transitions B: Study Design and Data Sources. The use of quantitative secondary analysis of TIMSS 2023 data is appropriate and well aligned with the research questions. The sample sizes and the national representativeness of the TIMSS samples justifies the generalizability of the findings. The recognition of TIMSS as a well-established international assessment enables valid cross-national comparisons. The description of the test design is broadly accurate and shows familiarity with large-scale assessment methodology. The following issues were observed The description of TIMSS technical procedures in the article is incomplete. Although TIMSS design is mentioned, the article does not explicitly state how plausible values (PVs) were handled in the analysis. These details will help to confirm that TIMSS technical standards were followed. The analysis does not explain whether or how contextual variables collected during the study (SES, language of instruction, teacher qualifications, opportunity-to-learn indicators) were used. Given TIMSS’s strong emphasis on context, this is a missed opportunity for explanatory depth. For the psychometric and reliability considerations, there is need for reference to internal consistency, While TIMSS provides validated items, secondary analyses typically reference psychometric adequacy or refer explicitly to IEA technical documentation. Inclusion of some justification of Grade-Level Comparison is missing . A rationale for South Africa testing at Grade 5 (rather than Grade 4) for the primary cycle should be explicitly noted to strengthen the conceptual legitimacy of the comparison with Singapore Grade 4. The following action points are suggested Ex plicitly describe the use of plausible values (number of PVs, which domains, how handled in analysis). Detail the weighting strategy , including sampling weights and replicate weights, and explain how the two-stage sampling structure was accounted for. Indicate whether contextual variables (SES, language, school resources, teacher characteristics) were included in any extended analysis; if not, explain this limitation. Reference psychometric evidence (e.g., IEA technical reports) to reassure readers about reliability and validity of domain scores. Clarify the grade-level choice for South Africa and how it affects comparability with Singapore Grade 4. C: Methodology and Statistical Analysis The categorization of content domains (Number, Measurement & Geometry, Data) and cognitive domains (Knowing, Applying, Reasoning) is appropriate and consistent with TIMSS. The use of weighted estimates, mean differences, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) is methodologically suitable for characterizing performance gaps.. The following issues were observed: To avoid biased estimates, domain-level comparisons in TIMSS require appropriate PV handling and replication methods. It is not clear whether the analysis uses domain-specific plausible values correctly For the variance estimation and significance testing, it is does not specify whether standard errors, confidence intervals, or p-values were computed. Descriptive statistics without uncertainty estimates weaken inferential robustness. The author had limited use of advanced modelling. The analysis is largely descriptive (means and effect sizes)..Given the richness of TIMSS data, multivariate methods (e.g., regression, multilevel models, mediation with contextual variables, DIF analyses) could substantially deepen the insights. While Cohen’s D is reported, the interpretation of effect sizes in context is limited. There is little discussion of what constitutes a small/medium/large effect in educational terms., Suggested action points Specify analytical tools and procedures used to handle PVs and weights (software, settings, treatment of domains). Report standard errors and/or confidence intervals for key estimates and clarify whether hypothesis tests were performed. Where feasible, incorporate multivariate or multilevel analyses to examine how contextual variables relate to domain-specific performance. Interpret effect sizes in educationally meaningful terms, not just numerically. D: Interpretation of Findings, Discussion, and Conclusion The discussion is comprehensive and analytically rich. Content and cognitive domain findings and linking them to curriculum, pedagogy, and systemic factors is integrated well. Content-level weaknesses and cognitive weaknesses are clearly interpreted and consistent with previous research .Policy and practice implications including pillars of reform around foundational knowledge, geometry/spatial reasoning, and leveraging application skills to cultivate reasoning is well structured. The conclusion offers a strong synthesis, links to broader goals such as SDG 4, and emphasizes curriculum-pedagogy-assessment coherence through Curriculum Alignment Theory Issues observed included the need for greater engagement with learning progression theory, to deepen the explanatory power. Some claims require evidence or qualification statements such as “procedural accuracy over conceptual exploration” or “curriculum spreads content thinly” need either citation or more cautious phrasing. The claim that learners are “stronger in applying” requires quantification and statistical validation . ECE References in this section should also be expunged and corrected . To maintain academic balance, the discussion on using Singapore as a model should acknowledge potential constraints such as high academic pressure, streaming, selective teacher recruitment, and cultural expectations. Some weaknesses (e.g., geometry and knowing) are repeated in multiple sections affecting structure In Pillar(3) three repetition is noted, The discussion is not using empirical evidence and relies of vague quantifiers. The structure of the discussion could be sharpened with clearer subheadings and more concise phrasing. Some recommendations (e.g., reducing class sizes) may be politically or financially challenging; indicating alternative or incremental strategies would strengthen the practical relevance. The conclusion would benefit from a brief statement of study limitations (e.g., reliance on secondary data, limited use of contextual variables, cross-sectional design) and directions for future research. Action points suggested Deepen theoretical engagement by explicitly drawing on mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks. Support key claims with evidence (citations or data) and quantify statements about “relative strength” in applying. Remove or reframe ECE references, using appropriate phase terminology. Provide a more nuanced view of Singapore, noting contextual constraints and non-transferable features. Consolidate repeated material on geometry/knowing weaknesses and improve subheadings and paragraph transitions. Comment on feasibility of policy recommendations and suggest realistic pathways or phases of implementation. Add a short section on study limitations and future research directions replace vague quantifiers with measurable empirical evidence Summary of Key Action Points for Revision Conceptual and Theoretical Clarify the benchmarking rationale (Singapore Grade 4 vs South Africa Grade 5). Correct ECE misalignment and use appropriate phase terminology. Strengthen theoretical framing using TIMSS, mathematical proficiency, and learning progression frameworks. Provide a more balanced portrayal of Singapore, acknowledging contextual constraints. Methodological and Statistical Explicitly describe handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and replicate weights. Report standard errors, confidence intervals, and significance tests for key comparisons. Consider multivariate or multilevel analyses using contextual variables Interpret effect sizes substantively, not just numerically. Context and Interpretation Integrate contextual questionnaire data (SES, language, resources, teacher factors) where possible. Link performance patterns explicitly to systemic factors (teacher knowledge, curriculum pacing, language of learning and teaching) Ensure claims are evidence-based and appropriately referenced. Structure and Presentation >>minor corrections Streamline the introduction and discussion, removing redundancy and improving coherence. Strengthen section headings and transitions for easier navigation. Include tables or figures with domain-specific means, SEs, and effect sizes Add a concise section on limitations and future research. ​​​​​​ Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Mathematics Education and Teacher Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT O'CONNOR MKM. Reviewer Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435305 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1#referee-response-435305 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 28 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 28 Jan 2026 Author Response I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion ... Continue reading I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion and Conclusion. These concerns have been addressed through strengthened integration of mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks, expanded methodological transparency regarding plausible values and variance estimation, refined interpretation of effect sizes, removal of misaligned ECE references, and a more nuanced treatment of Singapore as a benchmark. We believe the revisions comprehensively address the issues identified. I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion and Conclusion. These concerns have been addressed through strengthened integration of mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks, expanded methodological transparency regarding plausible values and variance estimation, refined interpretation of effect sizes, removal of misaligned ECE references, and a more nuanced treatment of Singapore as a benchmark. We believe the revisions comprehensively address the issues identified. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 16 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified ... Continue reading Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the benchmarking rationale by providing a detailed explanation of the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring comparability between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners. I have also strengthened the articulation of the research gap, removed misaligned references to Early Childhood Education, and refined the theoretical framing to improve conceptual clarity. In addition, I have expanded the methodological section to provide clearer explanations of TIMSS procedures, including the handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and variance estimation, and clarified the descriptive and diagnostic focus of the study in relation to the use of contextual variables and modelling approaches. The interpretation of effect sizes has been strengthened, and claims have been revised to ensure they are appropriately supported and cautiously framed. The discussion has been revised to enhance analytical depth, reduce prescriptive elements, improve structural coherence, and better integrate the findings with existing literature, while also providing a more balanced interpretation of the Singapore comparison. A concise limitations section has also been included to reflect key design and contextual constraints. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution of the study. Kind regards, Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the benchmarking rationale by providing a detailed explanation of the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring comparability between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners. I have also strengthened the articulation of the research gap, removed misaligned references to Early Childhood Education, and refined the theoretical framing to improve conceptual clarity. In addition, I have expanded the methodological section to provide clearer explanations of TIMSS procedures, including the handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and variance estimation, and clarified the descriptive and diagnostic focus of the study in relation to the use of contextual variables and modelling approaches. The interpretation of effect sizes has been strengthened, and claims have been revised to ensure they are appropriately supported and cautiously framed. The discussion has been revised to enhance analytical depth, reduce prescriptive elements, improve structural coherence, and better integrate the findings with existing literature, while also providing a more balanced interpretation of the Singapore comparison. A concise limitations section has also been included to reflect key design and contextual constraints. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution of the study. Kind regards, Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 28 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 28 Jan 2026 Author Response I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion ... Continue reading I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion and Conclusion. These concerns have been addressed through strengthened integration of mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks, expanded methodological transparency regarding plausible values and variance estimation, refined interpretation of effect sizes, removal of misaligned ECE references, and a more nuanced treatment of Singapore as a benchmark. We believe the revisions comprehensively address the issues identified. I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion and Conclusion. These concerns have been addressed through strengthened integration of mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks, expanded methodological transparency regarding plausible values and variance estimation, refined interpretation of effect sizes, removal of misaligned ECE references, and a more nuanced treatment of Singapore as a benchmark. We believe the revisions comprehensively address the issues identified. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 16 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified ... Continue reading Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the benchmarking rationale by providing a detailed explanation of the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring comparability between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners. I have also strengthened the articulation of the research gap, removed misaligned references to Early Childhood Education, and refined the theoretical framing to improve conceptual clarity. In addition, I have expanded the methodological section to provide clearer explanations of TIMSS procedures, including the handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and variance estimation, and clarified the descriptive and diagnostic focus of the study in relation to the use of contextual variables and modelling approaches. The interpretation of effect sizes has been strengthened, and claims have been revised to ensure they are appropriately supported and cautiously framed. The discussion has been revised to enhance analytical depth, reduce prescriptive elements, improve structural coherence, and better integrate the findings with existing literature, while also providing a more balanced interpretation of the Singapore comparison. A concise limitations section has also been included to reflect key design and contextual constraints. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution of the study. Kind regards, Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the benchmarking rationale by providing a detailed explanation of the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring comparability between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners. I have also strengthened the articulation of the research gap, removed misaligned references to Early Childhood Education, and refined the theoretical framing to improve conceptual clarity. In addition, I have expanded the methodological section to provide clearer explanations of TIMSS procedures, including the handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and variance estimation, and clarified the descriptive and diagnostic focus of the study in relation to the use of contextual variables and modelling approaches. The interpretation of effect sizes has been strengthened, and claims have been revised to ensure they are appropriately supported and cautiously framed. The discussion has been revised to enhance analytical depth, reduce prescriptive elements, improve structural coherence, and better integrate the findings with existing literature, while also providing a more balanced interpretation of the Singapore comparison. A concise limitations section has also been included to reflect key design and contextual constraints. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution of the study. Kind regards, Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khazanchi R. Reviewer Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435300 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1#referee-response-435300 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025 Rashmi Khazanchi , Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435300 The manuscript titled “Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore” addresses an important topic by examining gaps in elementary-level mathematics learning through a comparison of TIMSS results from the ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript titled “Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore” addresses an important topic by examining gaps in elementary-level mathematics learning through a comparison of TIMSS results from the two countries. While the study’s focus and findings are potentially valuable, the manuscript contains several major methodological and conceptual issues that need to be addressed. The author compares TIMSS results of Grade 4 learners from Singapore with Grade 5 learners from South Africa; however, TIMSS assesses learners at Grades 4 and 8 only. The manuscript therefore needs to clarify how Grade 5 results were derived from TIMSS data and justify the rationale for benchmarking Grade 4 and Grade 5 learners. The research Question 1 may need to be revised, as TIMSS does not directly assess Grade 5 learners. Several in-text citations are missing throughout the manuscript as statement should be supported with appropriate citations. On page 3, the title of the literature review (“Comparative analysis of South African and Singaporean Grade 5 mathematics achievement”) requires correction and should be revised consistently throughout the paper, as it implies that the comparison is limited solely to Grade 5 mathematics achievement. In the conceptual framework section, the author introduces an integrative framework combining a comparative lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and curriculum theory dimensions; however, the sentence presenting this framework is a paragraph long and reduces clarity. To enhance clarity, the author needs to explain the role of each framework component, articulate the directional relationships among key constructs, and strengthen the narrative link to Figure 1. In the results section, findings should be discussed in direct relation to the research questions rather than beginning with tables or figures. The discussion section would benefit from further elaboration and stronger integration with the literature reviewed earlier, as well as more explicit connections to the research questions to enhance clarity and readability. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Artificial Intelligence in Education, AI - based tutoring systems, Mathematics Achievement, Student Engagement. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khazanchi R. Reviewer Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435300 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1#referee-response-435300 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 10 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, and I am grateful for the suggestions, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall quality of the paper. I respond to each of the major points raised below. With regard to the comment concerning the comparison between Grade 4 learners in Singapore and Grade 5 learners in South Africa, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this important methodological issue. While TIMSS is internationally benchmarked at Grades 4 and 8, it is also well documented that several participating countries, including South Africa, assess learners at Grade 5 using the Grade 4 TIMSS assessment instruments. This approach is adopted where curriculum alignment indicates that the Grade 4 framework more accurately reflects the instructional exposure of learners, a practice that parallels the assessment of Grade 9 learners using the Grade 8 TIMSS instruments in some contexts. In the revised manuscript, I will make this rationale explicit by clarifying that the South African Grade 5 learners were assessed using the standard TIMSS Grade 4 mathematics framework and instruments, thereby ensuring construct equivalence and international comparability. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, Research Question 1 will be refined to explicitly reflect this assessment design and to avoid any implication that TIMSS directly assesses a distinct Grade 5 framework. Concerning the observation that several in-text citations are missing, I acknowledge this limitation. A thorough review of the manuscript is currently underway to ensure that all empirical claims and theoretical statements are appropriately supported by relevant and up-to-date scholarly sources. These revisions will improve academic rigour and align with best practices in scholarly writing. Regarding the comment on the literature review title on page 3, I appreciate the reviewer’s attention to precision in terminology. The study intentionally focuses on Grade 5 learners in South Africa, assessed using the Grade 4 TIMSS instrument, and compares their performance with Grade 4 learners in Singapore, assessed using the same framework. To avoid ambiguity, the literature review title and related headings will be revised for consistency and clarity, ensuring that they accurately reflect the comparative focus and assessment design of the study, rather than implying a narrow or exclusive emphasis on Grade 5 achievement alone. I am also grateful for the insightful feedback on the conceptual framework section. I acknowledge that the current presentation of the integrative framework is overly dense. In the revised manuscript, this section will be restructured to clearly explain the role of each component, namely the comparative education lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and the curriculum theory dimensions. The directional relationships among the key constructs will be explicitly articulated, and the narrative will be more tightly aligned with Figure 1 to enhance conceptual coherence and reader accessibility. Finally, I appreciate the guidance regarding the results and discussion sections. In response, the results will be reorganised so that the findings are presented explicitly in relation to the research questions before introducing supporting tables and figures. The discussion section will be expanded to provide deeper engagement with the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript and to draw clearer, more explicit links between the findings, the research questions, and the broader scholarly debates on early mathematics achievement and international benchmarking. Once again, I sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. I am confident that addressing these points will substantially strengthen the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the literature on comparative mathematics education. Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, and I am grateful for the suggestions, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall quality of the paper. I respond to each of the major points raised below. With regard to the comment concerning the comparison between Grade 4 learners in Singapore and Grade 5 learners in South Africa, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this important methodological issue. While TIMSS is internationally benchmarked at Grades 4 and 8, it is also well documented that several participating countries, including South Africa, assess learners at Grade 5 using the Grade 4 TIMSS assessment instruments. This approach is adopted where curriculum alignment indicates that the Grade 4 framework more accurately reflects the instructional exposure of learners, a practice that parallels the assessment of Grade 9 learners using the Grade 8 TIMSS instruments in some contexts. In the revised manuscript, I will make this rationale explicit by clarifying that the South African Grade 5 learners were assessed using the standard TIMSS Grade 4 mathematics framework and instruments, thereby ensuring construct equivalence and international comparability. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, Research Question 1 will be refined to explicitly reflect this assessment design and to avoid any implication that TIMSS directly assesses a distinct Grade 5 framework. Concerning the observation that several in-text citations are missing, I acknowledge this limitation. A thorough review of the manuscript is currently underway to ensure that all empirical claims and theoretical statements are appropriately supported by relevant and up-to-date scholarly sources. These revisions will improve academic rigour and align with best practices in scholarly writing. Regarding the comment on the literature review title on page 3, I appreciate the reviewer’s attention to precision in terminology. The study intentionally focuses on Grade 5 learners in South Africa, assessed using the Grade 4 TIMSS instrument, and compares their performance with Grade 4 learners in Singapore, assessed using the same framework. To avoid ambiguity, the literature review title and related headings will be revised for consistency and clarity, ensuring that they accurately reflect the comparative focus and assessment design of the study, rather than implying a narrow or exclusive emphasis on Grade 5 achievement alone. I am also grateful for the insightful feedback on the conceptual framework section. I acknowledge that the current presentation of the integrative framework is overly dense. In the revised manuscript, this section will be restructured to clearly explain the role of each component, namely the comparative education lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and the curriculum theory dimensions. The directional relationships among the key constructs will be explicitly articulated, and the narrative will be more tightly aligned with Figure 1 to enhance conceptual coherence and reader accessibility. Finally, I appreciate the guidance regarding the results and discussion sections. In response, the results will be reorganised so that the findings are presented explicitly in relation to the research questions before introducing supporting tables and figures. The discussion section will be expanded to provide deeper engagement with the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript and to draw clearer, more explicit links between the findings, the research questions, and the broader scholarly debates on early mathematics achievement and international benchmarking. Once again, I sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. I am confident that addressing these points will substantially strengthen the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the literature on comparative mathematics education. Competing Interests: No competing interest Close Report a concern Author Response 28 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 28 Jan 2026 Author Response I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. ... Continue reading I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. These issues have been carefully addressed through clarifications of TIMSS grade participation, revisions to the conceptual framing and research questions, strengthened citation support, and restructuring of the Results and Discussion sections. We believe the revised manuscript now fully addresses the raised concerns. I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. These issues have been carefully addressed through clarifications of TIMSS grade participation, revisions to the conceptual framing and research questions, strengthened citation support, and restructuring of the Results and Discussion sections. We believe the revised manuscript now fully addresses the raised concerns. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 16 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale ... Continue reading Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale for benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners by explicitly explaining the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring measurement equivalence. I have also refined the research questions to align with the TIMSS design and streamlined the conceptual framework to improve clarity and coherence. In addition, I have strengthened the literature support throughout the manuscript, revised section headings for consistency, and restructured the Results and Discussion sections to ensure clear alignment with the research questions and stronger integration with existing literature. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide a concise synthesis fully grounded in the findings. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution to the study. Kind regards, Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale for benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners by explicitly explaining the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring measurement equivalence. I have also refined the research questions to align with the TIMSS design and streamlined the conceptual framework to improve clarity and coherence. In addition, I have strengthened the literature support throughout the manuscript, revised section headings for consistency, and restructured the Results and Discussion sections to ensure clear alignment with the research questions and stronger integration with existing literature. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide a concise synthesis fully grounded in the findings. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution to the study. Kind regards, Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 10 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, and I am grateful for the suggestions, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall quality of the paper. I respond to each of the major points raised below. With regard to the comment concerning the comparison between Grade 4 learners in Singapore and Grade 5 learners in South Africa, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this important methodological issue. While TIMSS is internationally benchmarked at Grades 4 and 8, it is also well documented that several participating countries, including South Africa, assess learners at Grade 5 using the Grade 4 TIMSS assessment instruments. This approach is adopted where curriculum alignment indicates that the Grade 4 framework more accurately reflects the instructional exposure of learners, a practice that parallels the assessment of Grade 9 learners using the Grade 8 TIMSS instruments in some contexts. In the revised manuscript, I will make this rationale explicit by clarifying that the South African Grade 5 learners were assessed using the standard TIMSS Grade 4 mathematics framework and instruments, thereby ensuring construct equivalence and international comparability. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, Research Question 1 will be refined to explicitly reflect this assessment design and to avoid any implication that TIMSS directly assesses a distinct Grade 5 framework. Concerning the observation that several in-text citations are missing, I acknowledge this limitation. A thorough review of the manuscript is currently underway to ensure that all empirical claims and theoretical statements are appropriately supported by relevant and up-to-date scholarly sources. These revisions will improve academic rigour and align with best practices in scholarly writing. Regarding the comment on the literature review title on page 3, I appreciate the reviewer’s attention to precision in terminology. The study intentionally focuses on Grade 5 learners in South Africa, assessed using the Grade 4 TIMSS instrument, and compares their performance with Grade 4 learners in Singapore, assessed using the same framework. To avoid ambiguity, the literature review title and related headings will be revised for consistency and clarity, ensuring that they accurately reflect the comparative focus and assessment design of the study, rather than implying a narrow or exclusive emphasis on Grade 5 achievement alone. I am also grateful for the insightful feedback on the conceptual framework section. I acknowledge that the current presentation of the integrative framework is overly dense. In the revised manuscript, this section will be restructured to clearly explain the role of each component, namely the comparative education lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and the curriculum theory dimensions. The directional relationships among the key constructs will be explicitly articulated, and the narrative will be more tightly aligned with Figure 1 to enhance conceptual coherence and reader accessibility. Finally, I appreciate the guidance regarding the results and discussion sections. In response, the results will be reorganised so that the findings are presented explicitly in relation to the research questions before introducing supporting tables and figures. The discussion section will be expanded to provide deeper engagement with the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript and to draw clearer, more explicit links between the findings, the research questions, and the broader scholarly debates on early mathematics achievement and international benchmarking. Once again, I sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. I am confident that addressing these points will substantially strengthen the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the literature on comparative mathematics education. Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, and I am grateful for the suggestions, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall quality of the paper. I respond to each of the major points raised below. With regard to the comment concerning the comparison between Grade 4 learners in Singapore and Grade 5 learners in South Africa, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this important methodological issue. While TIMSS is internationally benchmarked at Grades 4 and 8, it is also well documented that several participating countries, including South Africa, assess learners at Grade 5 using the Grade 4 TIMSS assessment instruments. This approach is adopted where curriculum alignment indicates that the Grade 4 framework more accurately reflects the instructional exposure of learners, a practice that parallels the assessment of Grade 9 learners using the Grade 8 TIMSS instruments in some contexts. In the revised manuscript, I will make this rationale explicit by clarifying that the South African Grade 5 learners were assessed using the standard TIMSS Grade 4 mathematics framework and instruments, thereby ensuring construct equivalence and international comparability. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, Research Question 1 will be refined to explicitly reflect this assessment design and to avoid any implication that TIMSS directly assesses a distinct Grade 5 framework. Concerning the observation that several in-text citations are missing, I acknowledge this limitation. A thorough review of the manuscript is currently underway to ensure that all empirical claims and theoretical statements are appropriately supported by relevant and up-to-date scholarly sources. These revisions will improve academic rigour and align with best practices in scholarly writing. Regarding the comment on the literature review title on page 3, I appreciate the reviewer’s attention to precision in terminology. The study intentionally focuses on Grade 5 learners in South Africa, assessed using the Grade 4 TIMSS instrument, and compares their performance with Grade 4 learners in Singapore, assessed using the same framework. To avoid ambiguity, the literature review title and related headings will be revised for consistency and clarity, ensuring that they accurately reflect the comparative focus and assessment design of the study, rather than implying a narrow or exclusive emphasis on Grade 5 achievement alone. I am also grateful for the insightful feedback on the conceptual framework section. I acknowledge that the current presentation of the integrative framework is overly dense. In the revised manuscript, this section will be restructured to clearly explain the role of each component, namely the comparative education lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and the curriculum theory dimensions. The directional relationships among the key constructs will be explicitly articulated, and the narrative will be more tightly aligned with Figure 1 to enhance conceptual coherence and reader accessibility. Finally, I appreciate the guidance regarding the results and discussion sections. In response, the results will be reorganised so that the findings are presented explicitly in relation to the research questions before introducing supporting tables and figures. The discussion section will be expanded to provide deeper engagement with the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript and to draw clearer, more explicit links between the findings, the research questions, and the broader scholarly debates on early mathematics achievement and international benchmarking. Once again, I sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. I am confident that addressing these points will substantially strengthen the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the literature on comparative mathematics education. Competing Interests: No competing interest Close Report a concern Author Response 28 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 28 Jan 2026 Author Response I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. ... Continue reading I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. These issues have been carefully addressed through clarifications of TIMSS grade participation, revisions to the conceptual framing and research questions, strengthened citation support, and restructuring of the Results and Discussion sections. We believe the revised manuscript now fully addresses the raised concerns. I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. These issues have been carefully addressed through clarifications of TIMSS grade participation, revisions to the conceptual framing and research questions, strengthened citation support, and restructuring of the Results and Discussion sections. We believe the revised manuscript now fully addresses the raised concerns. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi , Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa 16 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale ... Continue reading Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale for benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners by explicitly explaining the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring measurement equivalence. I have also refined the research questions to align with the TIMSS design and streamlined the conceptual framework to improve clarity and coherence. In addition, I have strengthened the literature support throughout the manuscript, revised section headings for consistency, and restructured the Results and Discussion sections to ensure clear alignment with the research questions and stronger integration with existing literature. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide a concise synthesis fully grounded in the findings. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution to the study. Kind regards, Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale for benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners by explicitly explaining the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring measurement equivalence. I have also refined the research questions to align with the TIMSS design and streamlined the conceptual framework to improve clarity and coherence. In addition, I have strengthened the literature support throughout the manuscript, revised section headings for consistency, and restructured the Results and Discussion sections to ensure clear alignment with the research questions and stronger integration with existing literature. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide a concise synthesis fully grounded in the findings. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution to the study. Kind regards, Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 05 Nov 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 03 Apr 26 read Version 2 (revision) 28 Jan 26 read Version 1 05 Nov 25 read read Rashmi Khazanchi , Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands MARGUERITE KHAKASA MIHESO O'CONNOR , Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya Fidele Ukobizaba , University of Rwanda College of Education, Rwamagana, Rwanda; University of Rwanda College of Education, Kayonza, Rwanda Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ukobizaba F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Apr 2026 | for Version 3 Fidele Ukobizaba , University of Rwanda College of Education, Rwamagana, Rwanda; African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS), University of Rwanda College of Education, Kayonza, Rwanda 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ukobizaba F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have made notable improvements to the manuscript compared to the previous version. Most of the earlier concerns have been addressed, and the manuscript is now generally readable. However, some issues still require revision: The third research objective is overly lengthy and lacks sufficient focus. Furthermore, it is unclear how this objective is operationalized in the results section, as no corresponding findings are presented. Considering this and given the absence of aligned results, it is recommended that this objective be removed. Following the revision of Comment 1, the statement in the first paragraph of results section: “Research Question 3, concerning curriculum and pedagogical implications, is addressed in the Discussion section” should also be deleted. The discussion section should explicitly interpret and synthesize the study findings in relation to relevant literature. Accordingly, Sections 4.6 and 4.7 should be removed, as they do not directly engage with or interpret the study results. A strong conclusion should sound clear, concise, and synthesis-oriented. It should not introduce new ideas, nor discuss the results, and should not include citations. Instead, it should bring the study to a logical close by highlighting meaning, contribution, and implications. The limitations section appears excessively extensive, which may weaken the perceived robustness of the study. It is recommended that the authors consolidate this section into two concise paragraphs. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics education. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Ukobizaba F. Peer Review Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196841.r472940) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v3#referee-response-472940 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ukobizaba F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Feb 2026 | for Version 2 Fidele Ukobizaba , University of Rwanda College of Education, Rwamagana, Rwanda; African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS), University of Rwanda College of Education, Kayonza, Rwanda 0 Views copyright © 2026 Ukobizaba F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study addresses an important and timely issue, “Closing the gap in early mathematics”, which is commendable. However, the manuscript has several substantial concerns that should be addressed to strengthen its quality and clarity. The introduction does not clearly identify or elaborate on the specific gaps in early mathematics among South African students. As a result, the purpose and direction of the study are not sufficiently clear to the reader. The focus and motivation of the study should be made explicit earlier in the manuscript. In this regard, think about the first line of the conclusion (which may be the aim of the study), where it is written: “This study examined South African Grade 5 learners’ mathematics achievement in TIMSS 2023, disaggregated by content and cognitive domains and benchmarked against Singapore’s Grade 4 performance.” The research questions are currently too broad and appear to target multiple aspects simultaneously, resulting in a lack of focus. For greater coherence and rigor, the research questions should be more specific and precisely formulated. The manuscript draws on three theoretical frameworks. This may dilute the conceptual focus of the study. The authors are encouraged to consider using one framework, or at most two that clearly complement each other, to provide a more coherent theoretical grounding. Research design raises concerns. The rationale for comparing Grade 5 South African students with Grade 4 Singaporean students is not adequately justified, as these groups are not at the same educational level. Comparisons should ideally be made between equivalent grade levels. Moreover, comparing two groups’ results alone is insufficient to identify learning gaps in mathematics. The authors should consider an alternative design or provide a stronger justification for their approach. The results section primarily reports differences in performance between the two groups (effect size) but does not clearly identify or analyze “gaps” in learning. Given the title, “Closing the gap in early mathematics…,” the manuscript should explicitly identify where the gaps exist, describe their nature, explore possible reasons for them, and suggest ways these gaps could be addressed. In the discussion section, it is written: “This section addresses Research Question 3 by interpreting domain-specific and cognitive performance patterns in relation to curriculum alignment, pedagogy, and teacher professional development and outlining implications for improving mathematics achievement in South Africa.” However, this section should be discussing the results in line with the research questions. Additionally, this section should more explicitly connect the findings to existing literature and prior research to situate the study within the broader scholarly conversation. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics education. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 03 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Reviewer Comments Response to Comments The introduction does not clearly identify or elaborate on the specific gaps in early mathematics among South African students. The purpose and direction of the study are not sufficiently clear. The introduction has been revised to explicitly state the purpose of the study earlier and to clearly identify the specific achievement gaps motivating the analysis. The revised text now highlights that the largest content-domain gap occurs in Measurement and Geometry and the largest cognitive-domain gap occurs in Knowing. The study aim is explicitly articulated in the opening section, clarifying the diagnostic intent of disaggregating achievement across content and cognitive domains. The research questions are too broad and lack focus. The research questions were refined for precision and coherence. Research Questions 1 and 2 now focus specifically on content-domain and cognitive-domain profiling, while Research Question 3 is limited to curriculum and pedagogical implications derived from the empirical findings. This ensures a clear alignment between Results (RQ1 and RQ2) and Discussion (RQ3). The manuscript draws on three theoretical frameworks, which may dilute conceptual focus. The conceptual framework has been streamlined to retain two complementary frameworks: the TIMSS domain framework and Curriculum Alignment Theory (Porter, 2002). Additional theoretical layering was removed to improve conceptual clarity. Figure 1 was redesigned to reflect this streamlined structure. The rationale for comparing Grade 5 South African learners with Grade 4 Singaporean learners is not adequately justified. Comparisons should ideally be between equivalent grade levels. The methodology section now clearly explains that both cohorts were assessed using the same TIMSS Grade 4 mathematics framework and reporting scale. The comparison is instrument-equivalent rather than curriculum-equivalent. The manuscript explicitly clarifies that the design is descriptive and comparative, not causal, and is intended to benchmark performance patterns rather than infer grade-level learning differences. Comparing two groups alone is insufficient to identify learning gaps. The Results section now operationalises “achievement gap” explicitly as (a) deviation from the TIMSS international centre point and (b) benchmark scale-score differences with associated effect sizes. The analysis identifies the location, magnitude, and concentration of domain-specific gaps rather than merely reporting mean differences. The Results section reports effect sizes but does not clearly analyse gaps in learning. The Results section was restructured to explicitly identify where gaps exist, describe their magnitude, and distinguish between uniform underperformance and concentrated domain-specific weaknesses. Item-level illustrations were included to demonstrate how gaps manifest in foundational fluency and spatial reasoning tasks. The Discussion should more explicitly connect findings to the research questions and prior literature. The Discussion was reorganised to mirror the empirical findings and to explicitly anchor each subsection in the identified content and cognitive gaps. Connections to prior South African and international research were strengthened, and interpretations are framed within the retained theoretical structure. Is the study design appropriate and technically sound? (Reviewer indicated “No”) The Method section was strengthened by explicitly detailing the use of plausible values, Rubin’s rules for combining estimates, replicate weights for variance estimation, complex sampling adjustments, and effect size interpretation. The manuscript now clearly states that the analysis is descriptive and non-causal. Are sufficient details provided to allow replication? (Reviewer indicated “No”) Additional methodological transparency was incorporated. The manuscript now specifies estimation procedures, variance computation methods, and reporting of confidence intervals. Derived datasets and methodological documentation have been deposited in an open-access repository to support replication. Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results? (Reviewer indicated “No”) The Conclusion was revised to align strictly with the empirical findings. Causal overreach was removed, reform priorities are directly grounded in identified domain-specific gaps, and claims are framed proportionately to the descriptive comparative design. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Dear Dr Ukobizaba, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the research gap in the Introduction by explicitly identifying the limited focus on domain-specific mathematics achievement at the primary level and by stating the purpose of the study more clearly at an earlier stage. The research questions have been refined and reduced to ensure greater focus and alignment with the study design. In addition, the conceptual framework has been streamlined by adopting curriculum alignment theory as the primary analytical lens, with the TIMSS framework providing the structure for domain-level analysis. I have also strengthened the justification for comparing South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners by explaining the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 assessment framework and ensuring comparability on a common measurement scale. The Results section has been revised to explicitly identify and analyse achievement gaps across content and cognitive domains, rather than focusing only on differences in performance. Furthermore, the Discussion section has been restructured to align directly with the research questions, remove references to the previously included third research question, and strengthen the integration of findings with existing literature. The Methods section has been expanded to provide clearer detail on analytical procedures, including the handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and variance estimation, to enhance transparency and reproducibility. Finally, the conclusion has been rewritten to ensure that it is fully supported by the findings and provides a clear and concise synthesis of the study’s contribution. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, methodological rigour, and contribution of the study. Kind regards, View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Ukobizaba F. Peer Review Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194776.r453643) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v2#referee-response-453643 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 O'CONNOR M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Dec 2025 | for Version 1 MARGUERITE KHAKASA MIHESO O'CONNOR , Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya 0 Views copyright © 2026 O'CONNOR M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Review report Introduction The article addresses an important and timely question in mathematics education: domain-specific patterns of achievement in TIMSS 2023, comparing South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners. The topic is relevant and well grounded providing an opportunity for policy and practice impact in South Africa and the wider Sub-Saharan region. The research purpose and alignment with TIMSS conceptual frameworks are quite clear. Descriptive statistical analysis and accurate identification of domain-specific weaknesses is evident. There is observed an effective use of TIMSS as an international benchmark to highlight systemic performance gaps. The integration of literature from both high-performing (Singapore) and lower-performing (South Africa) systems is provided in a coherent narrative that links content and cognitive deficits to curriculum and instructional factors. However several conceptual and methodological limitations which currently reduce the manuscript’s rigor. have been identified. Revisions are required, particularly in theoretical framing, TIMSS- specific methodology, and the depth of interpretation and contextualization. Some minor corrections have also been identified for authors attention for proof reading The following observations have been made and related. action points suggested for consideration A): Presentation The article is generally well structured, articulate, and contextually grounded. The introduction to the article provides a clear rationale for focusing on South African primary mathematics achievement using TIMSS 2023 and situates the work within persistent national under performance. The performance gap (- 250 points) between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners is clearly stated and framed as a systemic issue rather than a purely learner-level deficit. The need to move beyond overall scores to content and cognitive domain analysis is well argued and aligned with TIMSS reporting structures. In addition, the contribution of the study, especially the focus on Grade 5 as an under-researched phase relative to Grade 9, is well articulated The following issues were noted in the presentation The rationale of benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners against Singaporean Grade 4 learners though methodologically common in TIMSS is not well explained. The clarification of why Singapore Grade 4 is used as a comparator is necessary . Secondly ,the article introduces and sustains a misaligned reference to Early Childhood Education (ECE). This introduction at one point frames the work as focusing on Early Childhood Education, which is conceptually inaccurate for TIMSS Grade 5. Grade 5 sits in the primary/intermediate phase, not ECE.. In addition, the conceptual rationale for the theoretical framing of content and cognitive domains did not recognize frameworks such as: TIMSS assessment framework, Kilpatrick et al.’s strands of mathematical proficiency and theories of cognitive demand and learning progression,. Finally, there is need to clarify the research gap. It is stated that Grade 5 and domain-specific analyses are under-researched, but this gap is not supported by specific citations and a brief synthesis of existing work.. As a result, the author is encouraged to Action as follows Clearly justify the benchmarking of South Africa Grade 5 against Singapore Grade 4. Remove or revise all references to ECE; and use more accurate terms Strengthen theoretical framing by linking content and cognitive domains to recognized frameworks (e.g., mathematical proficiency, cognitive demand, learning trajectories). Clarify the research gap with citations that show the relative neglect of Grade 5 and domain-specific analyses. Streamline the introduction by reducing redundant statements and improving paragraph transitions B: Study Design and Data Sources. The use of quantitative secondary analysis of TIMSS 2023 data is appropriate and well aligned with the research questions. The sample sizes and the national representativeness of the TIMSS samples justifies the generalizability of the findings. The recognition of TIMSS as a well-established international assessment enables valid cross-national comparisons. The description of the test design is broadly accurate and shows familiarity with large-scale assessment methodology. The following issues were observed The description of TIMSS technical procedures in the article is incomplete. Although TIMSS design is mentioned, the article does not explicitly state how plausible values (PVs) were handled in the analysis. These details will help to confirm that TIMSS technical standards were followed. The analysis does not explain whether or how contextual variables collected during the study (SES, language of instruction, teacher qualifications, opportunity-to-learn indicators) were used. Given TIMSS’s strong emphasis on context, this is a missed opportunity for explanatory depth. For the psychometric and reliability considerations, there is need for reference to internal consistency, While TIMSS provides validated items, secondary analyses typically reference psychometric adequacy or refer explicitly to IEA technical documentation. Inclusion of some justification of Grade-Level Comparison is missing . A rationale for South Africa testing at Grade 5 (rather than Grade 4) for the primary cycle should be explicitly noted to strengthen the conceptual legitimacy of the comparison with Singapore Grade 4. The following action points are suggested Ex plicitly describe the use of plausible values (number of PVs, which domains, how handled in analysis). Detail the weighting strategy , including sampling weights and replicate weights, and explain how the two-stage sampling structure was accounted for. Indicate whether contextual variables (SES, language, school resources, teacher characteristics) were included in any extended analysis; if not, explain this limitation. Reference psychometric evidence (e.g., IEA technical reports) to reassure readers about reliability and validity of domain scores. Clarify the grade-level choice for South Africa and how it affects comparability with Singapore Grade 4. C: Methodology and Statistical Analysis The categorization of content domains (Number, Measurement & Geometry, Data) and cognitive domains (Knowing, Applying, Reasoning) is appropriate and consistent with TIMSS. The use of weighted estimates, mean differences, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) is methodologically suitable for characterizing performance gaps.. The following issues were observed: To avoid biased estimates, domain-level comparisons in TIMSS require appropriate PV handling and replication methods. It is not clear whether the analysis uses domain-specific plausible values correctly For the variance estimation and significance testing, it is does not specify whether standard errors, confidence intervals, or p-values were computed. Descriptive statistics without uncertainty estimates weaken inferential robustness. The author had limited use of advanced modelling. The analysis is largely descriptive (means and effect sizes)..Given the richness of TIMSS data, multivariate methods (e.g., regression, multilevel models, mediation with contextual variables, DIF analyses) could substantially deepen the insights. While Cohen’s D is reported, the interpretation of effect sizes in context is limited. There is little discussion of what constitutes a small/medium/large effect in educational terms., Suggested action points Specify analytical tools and procedures used to handle PVs and weights (software, settings, treatment of domains). Report standard errors and/or confidence intervals for key estimates and clarify whether hypothesis tests were performed. Where feasible, incorporate multivariate or multilevel analyses to examine how contextual variables relate to domain-specific performance. Interpret effect sizes in educationally meaningful terms, not just numerically. D: Interpretation of Findings, Discussion, and Conclusion The discussion is comprehensive and analytically rich. Content and cognitive domain findings and linking them to curriculum, pedagogy, and systemic factors is integrated well. Content-level weaknesses and cognitive weaknesses are clearly interpreted and consistent with previous research .Policy and practice implications including pillars of reform around foundational knowledge, geometry/spatial reasoning, and leveraging application skills to cultivate reasoning is well structured. The conclusion offers a strong synthesis, links to broader goals such as SDG 4, and emphasizes curriculum-pedagogy-assessment coherence through Curriculum Alignment Theory Issues observed included the need for greater engagement with learning progression theory, to deepen the explanatory power. Some claims require evidence or qualification statements such as “procedural accuracy over conceptual exploration” or “curriculum spreads content thinly” need either citation or more cautious phrasing. The claim that learners are “stronger in applying” requires quantification and statistical validation . ECE References in this section should also be expunged and corrected . To maintain academic balance, the discussion on using Singapore as a model should acknowledge potential constraints such as high academic pressure, streaming, selective teacher recruitment, and cultural expectations. Some weaknesses (e.g., geometry and knowing) are repeated in multiple sections affecting structure In Pillar(3) three repetition is noted, The discussion is not using empirical evidence and relies of vague quantifiers. The structure of the discussion could be sharpened with clearer subheadings and more concise phrasing. Some recommendations (e.g., reducing class sizes) may be politically or financially challenging; indicating alternative or incremental strategies would strengthen the practical relevance. The conclusion would benefit from a brief statement of study limitations (e.g., reliance on secondary data, limited use of contextual variables, cross-sectional design) and directions for future research. Action points suggested Deepen theoretical engagement by explicitly drawing on mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks. Support key claims with evidence (citations or data) and quantify statements about “relative strength” in applying. Remove or reframe ECE references, using appropriate phase terminology. Provide a more nuanced view of Singapore, noting contextual constraints and non-transferable features. Consolidate repeated material on geometry/knowing weaknesses and improve subheadings and paragraph transitions. Comment on feasibility of policy recommendations and suggest realistic pathways or phases of implementation. Add a short section on study limitations and future research directions replace vague quantifiers with measurable empirical evidence Summary of Key Action Points for Revision Conceptual and Theoretical Clarify the benchmarking rationale (Singapore Grade 4 vs South Africa Grade 5). Correct ECE misalignment and use appropriate phase terminology. Strengthen theoretical framing using TIMSS, mathematical proficiency, and learning progression frameworks. Provide a more balanced portrayal of Singapore, acknowledging contextual constraints. Methodological and Statistical Explicitly describe handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and replicate weights. Report standard errors, confidence intervals, and significance tests for key comparisons. Consider multivariate or multilevel analyses using contextual variables Interpret effect sizes substantively, not just numerically. Context and Interpretation Integrate contextual questionnaire data (SES, language, resources, teacher factors) where possible. Link performance patterns explicitly to systemic factors (teacher knowledge, curriculum pacing, language of learning and teaching) Ensure claims are evidence-based and appropriately referenced. Structure and Presentation >>minor corrections Streamline the introduction and discussion, removing redundancy and improving coherence. Strengthen section headings and transitions for easier navigation. Include tables or figures with domain-specific means, SEs, and effect sizes Add a concise section on limitations and future research. ​​​​​​ Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics Education and Teacher Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 28 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the detailed and constructive feedback concerning theoretical framing, TIMSS-specific methodology, interpretation of domain-level findings, and the balance and structure of the Discussion and Conclusion. These concerns have been addressed through strengthened integration of mathematical proficiency and learning progression frameworks, expanded methodological transparency regarding plausible values and variance estimation, refined interpretation of effect sizes, removal of misaligned ECE references, and a more nuanced treatment of Singapore as a benchmark. We believe the revisions comprehensively address the issues identified. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa Dear Dr O’Connor, I would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to strengthening this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the benchmarking rationale by providing a detailed explanation of the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring comparability between South African Grade 5 and Singaporean Grade 4 learners. I have also strengthened the articulation of the research gap, removed misaligned references to Early Childhood Education, and refined the theoretical framing to improve conceptual clarity. In addition, I have expanded the methodological section to provide clearer explanations of TIMSS procedures, including the handling of plausible values, sampling weights, and variance estimation, and clarified the descriptive and diagnostic focus of the study in relation to the use of contextual variables and modelling approaches. The interpretation of effect sizes has been strengthened, and claims have been revised to ensure they are appropriately supported and cautiously framed. The discussion has been revised to enhance analytical depth, reduce prescriptive elements, improve structural coherence, and better integrate the findings with existing literature, while also providing a more balanced interpretation of the Singapore comparison. A concise limitations section has also been included to reflect key design and contextual constraints. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution of the study. Kind regards, View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern O'CONNOR MKM. Peer Review Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435305) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1#referee-response-435305 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Khazanchi R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Dec 2025 | for Version 1 Rashmi Khazanchi , Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands 0 Views copyright © 2026 Khazanchi R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (3) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript titled “Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore” addresses an important topic by examining gaps in elementary-level mathematics learning through a comparison of TIMSS results from the two countries. While the study’s focus and findings are potentially valuable, the manuscript contains several major methodological and conceptual issues that need to be addressed. The author compares TIMSS results of Grade 4 learners from Singapore with Grade 5 learners from South Africa; however, TIMSS assesses learners at Grades 4 and 8 only. The manuscript therefore needs to clarify how Grade 5 results were derived from TIMSS data and justify the rationale for benchmarking Grade 4 and Grade 5 learners. The research Question 1 may need to be revised, as TIMSS does not directly assess Grade 5 learners. Several in-text citations are missing throughout the manuscript as statement should be supported with appropriate citations. On page 3, the title of the literature review (“Comparative analysis of South African and Singaporean Grade 5 mathematics achievement”) requires correction and should be revised consistently throughout the paper, as it implies that the comparison is limited solely to Grade 5 mathematics achievement. In the conceptual framework section, the author introduces an integrative framework combining a comparative lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and curriculum theory dimensions; however, the sentence presenting this framework is a paragraph long and reduces clarity. To enhance clarity, the author needs to explain the role of each framework component, articulate the directional relationships among key constructs, and strengthen the narrative link to Figure 1. In the results section, findings should be discussed in direct relation to the research questions rather than beginning with tables or figures. The discussion section would benefit from further elaboration and stronger integration with the literature reviewed earlier, as well as more explicit connections to the research questions to enhance clarity and readability. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Artificial Intelligence in Education, AI - based tutoring systems, Mathematics Achievement, Student Engagement. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (3) Author Response 10 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for the detailed and constructive feedback provided. I appreciate the time and scholarly attention devoted to the review, and I am grateful for the suggestions, which have been invaluable in strengthening the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall quality of the paper. I respond to each of the major points raised below. With regard to the comment concerning the comparison between Grade 4 learners in Singapore and Grade 5 learners in South Africa, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this important methodological issue. While TIMSS is internationally benchmarked at Grades 4 and 8, it is also well documented that several participating countries, including South Africa, assess learners at Grade 5 using the Grade 4 TIMSS assessment instruments. This approach is adopted where curriculum alignment indicates that the Grade 4 framework more accurately reflects the instructional exposure of learners, a practice that parallels the assessment of Grade 9 learners using the Grade 8 TIMSS instruments in some contexts. In the revised manuscript, I will make this rationale explicit by clarifying that the South African Grade 5 learners were assessed using the standard TIMSS Grade 4 mathematics framework and instruments, thereby ensuring construct equivalence and international comparability. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, Research Question 1 will be refined to explicitly reflect this assessment design and to avoid any implication that TIMSS directly assesses a distinct Grade 5 framework. Concerning the observation that several in-text citations are missing, I acknowledge this limitation. A thorough review of the manuscript is currently underway to ensure that all empirical claims and theoretical statements are appropriately supported by relevant and up-to-date scholarly sources. These revisions will improve academic rigour and align with best practices in scholarly writing. Regarding the comment on the literature review title on page 3, I appreciate the reviewer’s attention to precision in terminology. The study intentionally focuses on Grade 5 learners in South Africa, assessed using the Grade 4 TIMSS instrument, and compares their performance with Grade 4 learners in Singapore, assessed using the same framework. To avoid ambiguity, the literature review title and related headings will be revised for consistency and clarity, ensuring that they accurately reflect the comparative focus and assessment design of the study, rather than implying a narrow or exclusive emphasis on Grade 5 achievement alone. I am also grateful for the insightful feedback on the conceptual framework section. I acknowledge that the current presentation of the integrative framework is overly dense. In the revised manuscript, this section will be restructured to clearly explain the role of each component, namely the comparative education lens, the TIMSS curriculum model, and the curriculum theory dimensions. The directional relationships among the key constructs will be explicitly articulated, and the narrative will be more tightly aligned with Figure 1 to enhance conceptual coherence and reader accessibility. Finally, I appreciate the guidance regarding the results and discussion sections. In response, the results will be reorganised so that the findings are presented explicitly in relation to the research questions before introducing supporting tables and figures. The discussion section will be expanded to provide deeper engagement with the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript and to draw clearer, more explicit links between the findings, the research questions, and the broader scholarly debates on early mathematics achievement and international benchmarking. Once again, I sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. I am confident that addressing these points will substantially strengthen the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the literature on comparative mathematics education. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interest reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 28 Jan 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting critical concerns regarding grade-level comparability, clarity of the benchmarking rationale, citation completeness, and alignment between the research questions, results, and interpretation. These issues have been carefully addressed through clarifications of TIMSS grade participation, revisions to the conceptual framing and research questions, strengthened citation support, and restructuring of the Results and Discussion sections. We believe the revised manuscript now fully addresses the raised concerns. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Mathelela Steyn Mokgwathi, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa Dear Dr Khazanchi, I would like to thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback, which has significantly strengthened this manuscript. In this revision, I have clarified the rationale for benchmarking South African Grade 5 learners with Singaporean Grade 4 learners by explicitly explaining the use of the TIMSS Grade 4 framework and ensuring measurement equivalence. I have also refined the research questions to align with the TIMSS design and streamlined the conceptual framework to improve clarity and coherence. In addition, I have strengthened the literature support throughout the manuscript, revised section headings for consistency, and restructured the Results and Discussion sections to ensure clear alignment with the research questions and stronger integration with existing literature. The conclusion has been rewritten to provide a concise synthesis fully grounded in the findings. I trust that these revisions address the concerns raised and improve the overall clarity, rigour, and contribution to the study. Kind regards, View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Khazanchi R. Peer Review Report For: Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights from TIMSS 2023 in South Africa and Singapore [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :1209 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189692.r435300) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1#referee-response-435300 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Mokgwathi MS'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209", templates : { twitter : "Closing the Gap in Early Mathematics: Domain and Cognitive Insights.... Mokgwathi MS, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1209/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/172015/189692") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "189692"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "453638": 0, "453639": 0, "453636": 0, "453637": 0, "453635": 0, "453644": 0, "453642": 0, "453643": 18, "453640": 0, "453641": 0, "433062": 0, "433063": 0, "433060": 0, "433061": 0, "433058": 0, "433059": 0, "433056": 0, "453408": 0, "433057": 0, "453409": 0, "473263": 0, "473262": 0, "473261": 0, "473260": 0, "473259": 0, "433064": 0, "433065": 0, "456631": 0, "473268": 0, "473267": 0, "473266": 0, "473265": 0, "473264": 0, "430398": 0, "456638": 0, "430399": 0, "456639": 0, "456636": 0, "456637": 0, "456634": 0, "456635": 0, "456632": 0, "456633": 0, "430406": 0, "430407": 0, "430404": 0, "430405": 0, "430402": 0, "430403": 0, "430400": 0, "456640": 0, "430401": 0, "484831": 0, "484830": 0, "484829": 0, "484828": 0, "484827": 0, "484826": 0, "435302": 0, "435303": 0, "435300": 23, "435301": 0, "435298": 0, "484835": 0, "435299": 0, "484834": 0, "484833": 0, "484832": 0, "472940": 10, "435306": 0, "472939": 0, "435307": 0, "472938": 0, "435304": 0, "435305": 26, "460023": 0, "460030": 0, "460029": 0, "460028": 0, "460027": 0, "460026": 0, "460025": 0, "460024": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "e097cb4d-a21c-42fe-af88-d25d6af6968e"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });