Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion and Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with th
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: There is a widespread consensus in the literature on the need to promote an education system that develops responsible, healthy individuals with the necessary skills to face current and future challenges. This study is original and well organized and will add to the limited body of scientific knowledge in this area. Although, this research has some limitations, which suggest a recommendation for future research. Future research could replicate this study in other countries.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In fact, in the last version of the study we mentioned the need to replicate the study in different countries. We include this comment in lines 455-464.
“The research has several limitations, which in turn suggest lines for future research. First, the sample was mainly comprised of higher education students, with the exception of a smaller group of secondary school students. It would therefore be useful to validate the study at different stages of education and increase the number of secondary schools in the sample in order to compare the outcomes. Secondly, although the sample included mostly Spanish students, a large group of South American students were also recruited through the online university. Future research could therefore replicate this study in other European, Asian or North American contexts in order to draw more generalised conclusions that take into account other cultural and geographical settings. On this point, recall that the cultural factor is closely related to the way emotions are perceived [85]; a broader based study would therefore yield more robust results that could be generalised at a global level”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript titled " Does emotional intelligence influence academic performance? The role of compassion and engagement in education for sustainable development" is very important. It addresses a significant topic about emotional intelligence and emotional skills that should incorporated in education for the improvement of academic performance and even more for the development of sustainable societies. Technical skills are essential but emotional skills have a leading and prominent position too.
The whole manuscript is concise and follows guidelines to authors stated by the journal.
The abstract reflects the content of the main text. The Introduction section and the literature review give adequate background information and context and it is easily understadable. The objectives and purpose of the study are clearly stated. It is understood that the authors were based in the Mayer and Salovey's model but it would be desirable to make a small reference in the theoretical part about the existence of the other models of EI even with a simple reference. Also, the authors having searched for the importance of EI could add in this section some studies that show exactly how important is EI in many aspects of our life. Some examples could be:
Drigas, A. S., & Papoutsi, C. (2018). A new layered model on emotional intelligence. Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 45. Cebrián, G., Junyent, M., & Mulà, I. (2020). Competencies in education for sustainable development: Emerging teaching and research developments. Frank, P., Fischer, D., & Wamsler, C. (2019). Mindfulness, Education, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Quality Education, 1-11.
The methology section is complete and detailed. A large sample (550 students from higher education and secondary school) appears to be sound and ethical protocols were upheld. The statistical analysis is well described and appropriate.
The conclusion section summarizes findings and explains the meaning of the main result. Also, emphasizes the new and important aspects of the study demonstrating the key role of emotional skills for academic perfromance and for a better and more compassionate society. Directions for future research have been stated.
Referencing and citations conform to the journal style.
In references in number 19 the author name is Di Fabio.
Overall, it is a very nice scientific effort.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the earlier version following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: a) It is understood that the authors were based in the Mayer and Salovey's model but it would be desirable to make a small reference in the theoretical part about the existence of the other models of EI even with a simple reference. b) Also, the authors having searched for the importance of EI could add in this section some studies that show exactly how important is EI in many aspects of our life. Some examples could be:
Drigas, A. S., & Papoutsi, C. (2018). A new layered model on emotional intelligence. Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 45.
Cebrián, G., Junyent, M., & Mulà, I. (2020). Competencies in education for sustainable development: Emerging teaching and research developments.
Frank, P., Fischer, D., & Wamsler, C. (2019). Mindfulness, Education, and the Sustainab
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the earlier version following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: a) It is understood that the authors were based in the Mayer and Salovey's model but it would be desirable to make a small reference in the theoretical part about the existence of the other models of EI even with a simple reference. b) Also, the authors having searched for the importance of EI could add in this section some studies that show exactly how important is EI in many aspects of our life. Some examples could be:
Drigas, A. S., & Papoutsi, C. (2018). A new layered model on emotional intelligence. Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 45.
Cebrián, G., Junyent, M., & Mulà, I. (2020). Competencies in education for sustainable development: Emerging teaching and research developments.
Frank, P., Fischer, D., & Wamsler, C. (2019). Mindfulness, Education, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Quality Education, 1-11.
Response 1: We are grateful to the reviewer for their comments. Therefore, according to your suggestions, we mentioned other models and perspectives including them in the introduction in lines 115-121. Moreover we also included the references suggested by the reviewer in the line 120-121 122 y 123.
Point 2: In references in number 19 the author name is Di Fabio.
Response 1: We are grateful to the reviewer for their comments. We have modified the reference you mentioned.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Page 2, Line 80 Similarly, among the essential competences that students should cultivate acquire with education for sustainable development…
Page 4, Line 138. Please consider anding the word skills in this sentence:
EI skills shape character traits such as altruism and compassion, which are essential for successful
The Conclusion is extended, I am not sure if the authors wish to expand so much their conclusion. I did see significant results and important evidence which explain how the investigated parameters are interacting. The current version of the discussion could be revised to focus on discussing the findings of the present results and how these do (they do) enhance our knowledge in improving academic achievements including education for sustainable development.
For example, if the authors agree they could move lines 387-416 to the Introduction (but please do avoid repeating some lines) were this text belongs.
In the conclusion, the authors could start with the text in line 418, but please do present your conclusions on the basis of your results (for example write about Table 6), and make a reference to supporting evidence of previous works to defend your arguments about how and why your findings have implications for policy makes, educational management for education for sustainable development
You observed a correlation between self‐compassion and emotional intelligence in students. I wonder if you agree to further support these findings by making a reference to the work of Şenyuva et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12204) who reported a strong correlation between self‐compassion and emotional intelligence in nursing students. Furthermore, (in the context of education for sustainable development) , you could write that emotional intelligence skills of the teaching staff (not only of the students) is also a crucial parameter in academic results, starting from the emotional skills of University lectures but also going back to the skill of teachers even at early education stages, as emotional intelligent is a skill which can start to develop from early childhood. Empathy and other parameters of E.I. of teachers may enable them to perform better in their profession (International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 26-36 https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2020.81.26.36
Author Response
Your sugges
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions, we included in the Conclusions section the relationship of our findings with previous studies according to the references you indicated
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the earlier version following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: Page 3, Line 95 Similarly, among the essential competences that students should cultivate acquire with education for sustainable development…
Page 4, Line 162. Please consider anding the word skills in this sentence:
EI skills shape character traits such as altruism and compassion, which are essential for successful
Response 1: We apologise for this aspect. According your suggestions we corrected the mistakes in the text.
Point 2: The Conclusion is extended, I am not sure if the authors wish to expand so much their conclusion. I did see significant results and important evidence which explain how the investigated parameters are interacting. The current version of the discussion could be revised to focus on discussing the findings of the present results and how these do (they do) enhance our knowledge in improving academic achievements including education for sustainable development.
For example, if the authors agree they could move lines 387-416 to the Introduction (but please do avoid repeating some lines) were this text belongs.
In the conclusion, the authors could start with the text in line 418, but please do present your conclusions on the basis of your results (for example write about Table 6), and make a reference to supporting evidence of previous works to defend your arguments about how and why your findings have implications for policy makes, educational management for education for sustainable developmen
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions, according to them, we rewrote the conclusion (and hence also some parts of the introduction section). We included more info regarding the results (from Table 6) and discuss in this sense. We also explain in the conclusion how our results also shed some of light in the exisiting gaps in the previous literature (specifically regarding the direct/indirect IE-academic performance relationship) and also regarding education for sustainable development
Point 3: You observed a correlation between self‐compassion and emotional intelligence in students. I wonder if you agree to further support these findings by making a reference to the work of Şenyuva et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12204) who reported a strong correlation between self‐compassion and emotional intelligence in nursing students. Furthermore, (in the context of education for sustainable development) , you could write that emotional intelligence skills of the teaching staff (not only of the students) is also a crucial parameter in academic results, starting from the emotional skills of University lectures but also going back to the skill of teachers even at early education stages, as emotional intelligent is a skill which can start to develop from early childhood. Empathy and other parameters of E.I. of teachers may enable them to perform better in their profession (International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 26-36 https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2020.81.26.36
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the paper is relevant and current and values Psychological Capital at School.
The abstract is well prepared and has all the information about the framework and research methods used.
The introduction has a sufficient literature review on the study's keywords.
In line 136, hypothesis H1 should be written in a positive way.
The literature review is sufficient and relevant. However, the relationship between education for sustainable development and the variables under study is not clear.
The presentation and analysis of the results are the most appropriate and clear. However, the authors do not make an in-depth discussion between the results of this investigation with others.
It is worth noting the large number of articles for this research.
Author Response
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the earlier version following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In line 136, hypothesis H1 should be written in a positive way
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We rewrote the H1 in a positive way. Hence, it appears in Table 6 as rejected, following the expected results of the mediating role of compassion and engagement.
Point 2: The literature review is sufficient and relevant. However, the relationship between education for sustainable development and the variables under study is not clear.
Response 2: We are grateful to the reviewer for their comments. We have attempted to improve the literature review to enhance understanding of the relationship between our proposed model and education for sustainable development. We hope that our efforts, particularly in the new introduction, have improved the quality and understandability of the manuscript.
Point 3: The presentation and analysis of the results are the most appropriate and clear. However, the authors do not make an in-depth discussion between the results of this investigation with others.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we rewrote the conclusion. We included more info regarding the results (from Table 6) and discuss in this sense. We also explain in the conclusion how our results also shed some of light in the existing gaps in the previous literature (specifically regarding the direct/indirect IE-academic performance relationship), and also regarding future studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion and Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development” for Sustainability. This article considers 550 student survey responses to better understand how emotional intelligence is related to compassion, engagement and ultimately academic performance. The author(s) connect the need to educate students with not only knowledge, but emotional competencies to foster a more sustainable society which fits the journal nicely. Overall, this is a well written study, grounded in research, and offers interesting findings.
There are several ways the authors could further enhance this article as I will detail below. I have done my best to list these ideas in order to help the authors.
In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups(“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
I wish the author(s) all the best as they refine this paper. I hope these comments are helpful for the author(s) and contribute to enhancing this study.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Below we indicate how we addressed the reviewers’ concerns and comments. We reproduce each of the points they raise followed by our response to it. In the new version of the manuscript, modifications appear in red for ease of identification. We have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript by rewriting some parts in the introduction, method and the conclusion. However, if any more information is required regarding the changes, we would be glad to provide the reviewers with additional details. We are most grateful for your comments and the in-depth review. We hope that with the above-mentioned changes, our manuscript is now in a better position to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards
The authors
*******
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our new version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups (“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 2: For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this sense, we have introduced new information that help to build the framework. You can find this info in lines 42-43; 48-51 and 64-69.
Point 3: At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we added a brief explanation of the relationship presented as our model at the end of section 1 (lines 116-118).
Point 4: In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
- Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
Response 4: According to reviewer suggestion we have added in the text the following references:
- Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 2016, 8(4), 1–11.
- Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312–326, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, USA, 2017.
- Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Fontaine, J. R. The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion, 2019, 19, 917–922.
Point 5: One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
Response 5: Thanks for the insight, we have adjusted the sentence (now it is placed in lines179-180) according to your suggestions.
Point 6: The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. According to reviewer’s comments we have introduced in the text the references [13, 14,15,16] that enrich the arguments in the mentioned paragraph.
Point 7: In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have introduced a sentence linking EI and compassion in lines 187-189. Moreover, we also stressed the difference between compassion and EI as related but distinct constructs. You can see this change in page 5 lines 232-235.
Point 8: Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your recommendation. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 9: For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the terms used in the definition of the four EI components in order to respect the same terms used by the original authors. These terms are maintained throughout the rest of the paper.
Point 10: In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. In this regard, we mean that the sample consisted of 550 valid responses because all respondents gave an answer to each of the items asked in the questionnaire. In this sense, there were no questionnaires discarded. The fact of asking the students for voluntary and anonymous collaboration prevented disinterested students from accessing to the survey.
Point 11: In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
Response 11: We included the practical implications (doable for teachers) in lines 483-500.
Point 12: One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
Response 12: We apologise for this aspect. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revise quotes in order to correct the existing error.
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Below we indicate how we addressed the reviewers’ concerns and comments. We reproduce each of the points they raise followed by our response to it. In the new version of the manuscript, modifications appear in red for ease of identification. We have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript by rewriting some parts in the introduction, method and the conclusion. However, if any more information is required regarding the changes, we would be glad to provide the reviewers with additional details. We are most grateful for your comments and the in-depth review. We hope that with the above-mentioned changes, our manuscript is now in a better position to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards
The authors
*******
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our new version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups (“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 2: For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this sense, we have introduced new information that help to build the framework. You can find this info in lines 42-43; 48-51 and 64-69.
Point 3: At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we added a brief explanation of the relationship presented as our model at the end of section 1 (lines 116-118).
Point 4: In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
- Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
Response 4: According to reviewer suggestion we have added in the text the following references:
- Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 2016, 8(4), 1–11.
- Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312–326, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, USA, 2017.
- Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Fontaine, J. R. The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion, 2019, 19, 917–922.
Point 5: One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
Response 5: Thanks for the insight, we have adjusted the sentence (now it is placed in lines179-180) according to your suggestions.
Point 6: The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. According to reviewer’s comments we have introduced in the text the references [13, 14,15,16] that enrich the arguments in the mentioned paragraph.
Point 7: In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have introduced a sentence linking EI and compassion in lines 187-189. Moreover, we also stressed the difference between compassion and EI as related but distinct constructs. You can see this change in page 5 lines 232-235.
Point 8: Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your recommendation. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 9: For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the terms used in the definition of the four EI components in order to respect the same terms used by the original authors. These terms are maintained throughout the rest of the paper.
Point 10: In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. In this regard, we mean that the sample consisted of 550 valid responses because all respondents gave an answer to each of the items asked in the questionnaire. In this sense, there were no questionnaires discarded. The fact of asking the students for voluntary and anonymous collaboration prevented disinterested students from accessing to the survey.
Point 11: In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
Response 11: We included the practical implications (doable for teachers) in lines 483-500.
Point 12: One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
Response 12: We apologise for this aspect. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revise quotes in order to correct the existing error.
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Below we indicate how we addressed the reviewers’ concerns and comments. We reproduce each of the points they raise followed by our response to it. In the new version of the manuscript, modifications appear in red for ease of identification. We have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript by rewriting some parts in the introduction, method and the conclusion. However, if any more information is required regarding the changes, we would be glad to provide the reviewers with additional details. We are most grateful for your comments and the in-depth review. We hope that with the above-mentioned changes, our manuscript is now in a better position to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards
The authors
*******
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our new version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups (“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 2: For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this sense, we have introduced new information that help to build the framework. You can find this info in lines 42-43; 48-51 and 64-69.
Point 3: At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we added a brief explanation of the relationship presented as our model at the end of section 1 (lines 116-118).
Point 4: In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
- Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
Response 4: According to reviewer suggestion we have added in the text the following references:
- Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 2016, 8(4), 1–11.
- Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312–326, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, USA, 2017.
- Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Fontaine, J. R. The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion, 2019, 19, 917–922.
Point 5: One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
Response 5: Thanks for the insight, we have adjusted the sentence (now it is placed in lines179-180) according to your suggestions.
Point 6: The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. According to reviewer’s comments we have introduced in the text the references [13, 14,15,16] that enrich the arguments in the mentioned paragraph.
Point 7: In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have introduced a sentence linking EI and compassion in lines 187-189. Moreover, we also stressed the difference between compassion and EI as related but distinct constructs. You can see this change in page 5 lines 232-235.
Point 8: Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your recommendation. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 9: For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the terms used in the definition of the four EI components in order to respect the same terms used by the original authors. These terms are maintained throughout the rest of the paper.
Point 10: In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. In this regard, we mean that the sample consisted of 550 valid responses because all respondents gave an answer to each of the items asked in the questionnaire. In this sense, there were no questionnaires discarded. The fact of asking the students for voluntary and anonymous collaboration prevented disinterested students from accessing to the survey.
Point 11: In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
Response 11: We included the practical implications (doable for teachers) in lines 483-500.
Point 12: One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
Response 12: We apologise for this aspect. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revise quotes in order to correct the existing error.
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Below we indicate how we addressed the reviewers’ concerns and comments. We reproduce each of the points they raise followed by our response to it. In the new version of the manuscript, modifications appear in red for ease of identification. We have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript by rewriting some parts in the introduction, method and the conclusion. However, if any more information is required regarding the changes, we would be glad to provide the reviewers with additional details. We are most grateful for your comments and the in-depth review. We hope that with the above-mentioned changes, our manuscript is now in a better position to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards
The authors
*******
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our new version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups (“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 2: For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this sense, we have introduced new information that help to build the framework. You can find this info in lines 42-43; 48-51 and 64-69.
Point 3: At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we added a brief explanation of the relationship presented as our model at the end of section 1 (lines 116-118).
Point 4: In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
- Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
Response 4: According to reviewer suggestion we have added in the text the following references:
- Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 2016, 8(4), 1–11.
- Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312–326, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, USA, 2017.
- Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Fontaine, J. R. The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion, 2019, 19, 917–922.
Point 5: One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
Response 5: Thanks for the insight, we have adjusted the sentence (now it is placed in lines179-180) according to your suggestions.
Point 6: The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. According to reviewer’s comments we have introduced in the text the references [13, 14,15,16] that enrich the arguments in the mentioned paragraph.
Point 7: In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have introduced a sentence linking EI and compassion in lines 187-189. Moreover, we also stressed the difference between compassion and EI as related but distinct constructs. You can see this change in page 5 lines 232-235.
Point 8: Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your recommendation. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 9: For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the terms used in the definition of the four EI components in order to respect the same terms used by the original authors. These terms are maintained throughout the rest of the paper.
Point 10: In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. In this regard, we mean that the sample consisted of 550 valid responses because all respondents gave an answer to each of the items asked in the questionnaire. In this sense, there were no questionnaires discarded. The fact of asking the students for voluntary and anonymous collaboration prevented disinterested students from accessing to the survey.
Point 11: In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
Response 11: We included the practical implications (doable for teachers) in lines 483-500.
Point 12: One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
Response 12: We apologise for this aspect. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revise quotes in order to correct the existing error.
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Below we indicate how we addressed the reviewers’ concerns and comments. We reproduce each of the points they raise followed by our response to it. In the new version of the manuscript, modifications appear in red for ease of identification. We have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript by rewriting some parts in the introduction, method and the conclusion. However, if any more information is required regarding the changes, we would be glad to provide the reviewers with additional details. We are most grateful for your comments and the in-depth review. We hope that with the above-mentioned changes, our manuscript is now in a better position to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards
The authors
*******
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our new version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups (“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 2: For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this sense, we have introduced new information that help to build the framework. You can find this info in lines 42-43; 48-51 and 64-69.
Point 3: At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we added a brief explanation of the relationship presented as our model at the end of section 1 (lines 116-118).
Point 4: In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
- Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
Response 4: According to reviewer suggestion we have added in the text the following references:
- Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 2016, 8(4), 1–11.
- Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312–326, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, USA, 2017.
- Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Fontaine, J. R. The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion, 2019, 19, 917–922.
Point 5: One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
Response 5: Thanks for the insight, we have adjusted the sentence (now it is placed in lines179-180) according to your suggestions.
Point 6: The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. According to reviewer’s comments we have introduced in the text the references [13, 14,15,16] that enrich the arguments in the mentioned paragraph.
Point 7: In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have introduced a sentence linking EI and compassion in lines 187-189. Moreover, we also stressed the difference between compassion and EI as related but distinct constructs. You can see this change in page 5 lines 232-235.
Point 8: Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your recommendation. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 9: For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the terms used in the definition of the four EI components in order to respect the same terms used by the original authors. These terms are maintained throughout the rest of the paper.
Point 10: In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. In this regard, we mean that the sample consisted of 550 valid responses because all respondents gave an answer to each of the items asked in the questionnaire. In this sense, there were no questionnaires discarded. The fact of asking the students for voluntary and anonymous collaboration prevented disinterested students from accessing to the survey.
Point 11: In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
Response 11: We included the practical implications (doable for teachers) in lines 483-500.
Point 12: One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
Response 12: We apologise for this aspect. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revise quotes in order to correct the existing error.
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Below we indicate how we addressed the reviewers’ concerns and comments. We reproduce each of the points they raise followed by our response to it. In the new version of the manuscript, modifications appear in red for ease of identification. We have made a serious attempt to improve the manuscript by rewriting some parts in the introduction, method and the conclusion. However, if any more information is required regarding the changes, we would be glad to provide the reviewers with additional details. We are most grateful for your comments and the in-depth review. We hope that with the above-mentioned changes, our manuscript is now in a better position to be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards
The authors
*******
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our new version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: In the abstract, in line 17 add “students” to help specify that you are not referencing educators or other groups (“…plays a key role in the optimizing student’s academic performance…”).
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 2: For the rationale/study framing, the author(s) take the focus of Sustainability seriously as they begin the paper to demonstrate how emotional intelligence and academic performance relate to sustainability. I suspect that this was a revision (based on the red text in some sections – particularly the framing). However, reviewing this paper for the first time, the focus gets lost a bit early on because it isn’t until the bottom of the second page (line 85) that emotional intelligence is even mentioned. It would be helpful to flip some of these ideas to put emotional intelligence up front and then delve into how sustainability is an issue that emotional intelligence can mitigate. The rationale is well written and supported, it would just be much stronger if it focused the study from the start to signal to the reader what the study is about.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this sense, we have introduced new information that help to build the framework. You can find this info in lines 42-43; 48-51 and 64-69.
Point 3: At the end of section 1 in the preview for the paper, I recommend explaining (in a sentence or two) what will be discussed in section 2 and how each subsection of section 2 connect. Since the model does not appear until the end of section 2, it would help the reader know what to look for and the relationships that are being established in the lit review.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, we added a brief explanation of the relationship presented as our model at the end of section 1 (lines 116-118).
Point 4: In section 2.1 I greatly appreciate that the author(s) define emotional intelligence. I encourage them to include some more recent work on EI as they cite sources involving Mayer and Salovey. This keeps the paper current and helps to stay on top of new research developments for the theory. The author(s) do include recent sources toward the end of the section that are quite helpful. Here is a source that could be useful:
- Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso & Peter Salovey. 2016. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review 8(4). 1–11.
Response 4: According to reviewer suggestion we have added in the text the following references:
- Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., Salovey, P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 2016, 8(4), 1–11.
- Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. Emotional intelligence, health, and stress. In C. L. Cooper & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice, 312–326, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, USA, 2017.
- Van Hiel, A., Onraet, E., Haesevoets, T., Roets, A., Fontaine, J. R. The relationship between emotional abilities and right-wing and prejudiced attitudes. Emotion, 2019, 19, 917–922.
Point 5: One of the things discussed in line 109 is the idea of emotional regulation. I read this sentence several times and the sentence needs a small adjustment to note that emotional regulation is about emotional self-regulation. I know that the previous sentence and components note that EI is about self-regulation, but I still did a double take since “social intelligence” is about regulating others emotions.
Response 5: Thanks for the insight, we have adjusted the sentence (now it is placed in lines179-180) according to your suggestions.
Point 6: The sentence on 118-120 would benefit from a citation.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your comment. According to reviewer’s comments we have introduced in the text the references [13, 14,15,16] that enrich the arguments in the mentioned paragraph.
Point 7: In section 2.2, it is worth indicating in the sentence on line 138 that altruism and compassion are part of perceiving our own and others’ emotions to connect to the model component in section 2.1.
The author(s) need to explicitly explain how compassion is something different (although related) to EI so that it can be measured and stand as a separate variable.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions, we have introduced a sentence linking EI and compassion in lines 187-189. Moreover, we also stressed the difference between compassion and EI as related but distinct constructs. You can see this change in page 5 lines 232-235.
Point 8: Line 161 – Rather than “On the other hand” to begin the paragraph, label this as “second” in some way to signpost the four points more clearly.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your recommendation. This aspect has been introduced in the new version of the paper.
Point 9: For Figure 1 – Label the components of EI in the model to mirror the definition of EI previously provided in your paper. This involves changing “use” to “expression” and “management” to “regulation” here and throughout the rest of the paper. Using parallel terms helps with clarity and consistency.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the terms used in the definition of the four EI components in order to respect the same terms used by the original authors. These terms are maintained throughout the rest of the paper.
Point 10: In the methods section, lines 279-280 – what constituted a valid response? How many responses were discarded and why? This information will help substantiate the rigor of your data.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. In this regard, we mean that the sample consisted of 550 valid responses because all respondents gave an answer to each of the items asked in the questionnaire. In this sense, there were no questionnaires discarded. The fact of asking the students for voluntary and anonymous collaboration prevented disinterested students from accessing to the survey.
Point 11: In the conclusion the author(s) provide some general practical implication for changing practices. A more nuanced discussion is needed to account for EI, Compassion, and Engagement to make stronger detailed recommendations that are more actionable.
Response 11: We included the practical implications (doable for teachers) in lines 483-500.
Point 12: One small technical issue, unless there is a style guide specification I am missing, the period at the end of quotes should be placed inside the quotation marks throughout.
Response 12: We apologise for this aspect. According to the reviewer's suggestion we have revise quotes in order to correct the existing error.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe that the authors did a great effort to improve their manuscript and addressed all of my suggestions.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1064965
Submitted to section: Sustainable Education and Approaches, Competencies in Education for Sustainable Development II
Dear Ms. Octavia Roxana Cadia,
Thank you very much for your email of 25 January, in which you offer us the opportunity to submit to Sustainability a revised version of our manuscript “Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development”.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. Thank you very much
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read with attention and interest your paper that in my opinion is interesting and stimulating from different points of view. In spite of this, I have some important points that I wish underline to clarify my position.
I really think that emotional intelligence is important for a “sustainable education” and also for “education for sustainable development” but in my opinion your references to this field are very poor.
The references to “sustainable education” seems to me very weak. In other words, you mentioned the term “sustainable education” in the title and within the keywords but it becomes “invisible” in your paper. In addition, I wish underline that “Sustainable education” has a specific meaning and it’s not a synonymous of education for sustainable development or education for sustainability (you speak about “sustainable education” in the title but in your conclusions you mention “education for sustainability”). Analogously, the references to SDGs, seems to me weak and inconsistent.
You speak about compassion, empathic emotional response but it seems to me that you consider only an anthropocentric vision. Sustainability support a biocentric vision of the relation between man and environment and so could be more suitable in the perspective of sustainability, to consider also compassion and emotional response in relation to other living beings and/or to the environment in general.
In the second page of your paper you wrote “the essential competences that students should develop to achieve sustainable education”. What does it mean “to achieve sustainable education”? Sustainable education is not something “to achieve”, in my opinion.
Line 70 you wrote: “Cultivating EI means emotionally literating people to establish truly significant human relationships with nature, in order to achieve the SDGs.”. How can you say this? You have not approach the relationships between man and nature in your study. In addition, you mentioned the term “emotional sustainability” but you haven’t declared/discussed its meaning.
One typing error: 2nd pages – first line – Quality Criteria for Sustainabler Schools
In the light of my comments, I suggest to rethink and to deepen all the relations between your research and the concept of sustainability (and/or SDGs) that in my opinion are not sufficiently and adeguately approached for a Journal named Sustainability.
Many thanks for your attention
My Best Regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: I really think that emotional intelligence is important for a “sustainable education” and also for “education for sustainable development” but in my opinion your references to this field are very poor. The references to “sustainable education” seems to me very weak. In other words, you mentioned the term “sustainable education” in the title and within the keywords but it becomes “invisible” in your paper. In addition, I wish underline that “sustainable education” has a specific meaning and it’s not a synonymous of education for sustainable development or education for sustainability (you speak about “sustainable education” in the title but in your conclusions you mention “education for sustainability”). Analogously, the references to SDGs, seems to me weak and inconsistent.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency, for which we apologise. Following your advice, and to avoid any ambiguity in the manuscript, we now use the expression “education for sustainable development” throughout, as we consider it corresponds better to the content of the manuscript. “Sustainable education” is a much broader term, and would need to be developed differently in the article. The study focuses on emotional intelligence and its relationship to compassion, engagement and academic performance, which would be more closely related to developing the competences needed in education for sustainable development. Accordingly, we have removed all references to “sustainable education” and “education for sustainability” from the title and the rest of the manuscript, and replaced them throughout with “education for sustainable development”. In turn, we have further explored the literature on SDGs and the main historical events that have led to considerable advances in education for sustainable development. This new version, as can be seen in the Introduction section, is now supported by eight new references from the literature.
Point 2: You speak about compassion, empathic emotional response but it seems to me that you consider only an anthropocentric vision. Sustainability support a biocentric vision of the relation between man and environment and so could be more suitable in the perspective of sustainability, to consider also compassion and emotional response in relation to other living beings and/or to the environment in general.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. It is true that we focus on compassion between humans as we use a very well-known measure from the field of psychology (i.e. Petchsawang and Duchon, 2009) which measures the skill to understand and try to help other people. We start from the idea that building or educating on affective-emotional competences, such as EI or compassion, is one of the key steps towards sustainable development, which in the literature has mostly focused on environmental issues only (closer to a biocentric perspective). Therefore, since we agree with the idea that compassion and empathy for other beings (not only human) and nature in general is part of the philosophy of sustainable development, we have included some ideas in the text (see page 12) that coincide with the biocentric perspective. One example is the idea that compassion for other people is positively related to pro-environmental tendencies, according the study of Pfattheicher et al., 2016.
Point 3: In the second page of your paper you wrote “the essential competences that students should develop to achieve sustainable education”. What does it mean “to achieve sustainable education”? Sustainable education is not something “to achieve”, in my opinion.
Response 3: Indeed, as you kindly point out, sustainable education is not something “to achieve”. To more clearly express the idea we want to convey, we have rewritten this paragraph as follows:
“Similarly, among the essential competences that students should cultivate in education for sustainable development, Wals [12] includes the following: ability to feel empathy, sympathy, solidarity, being open-minded, compassionate, etc”.
Point 4: Line 70 you wrote: “Cultivating EI means emotionally literating people to establish truly significant human relationships with nature, in order to achieve the SDGs.”. How can you say this? You have not approach the relationships between man and nature in your study. In addition, you mentioned the term “emotional sustainability” but you haven’t declared/discussed its meaning.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We have removed this sentence from the new version of the manuscript as its explanation was confusing.
Point 5: One typing error: 2nd pages – first line – Quality Criteria for Sustainable Schools
Response 5: In response to your observation, we have removed the paragraph in which this typo appeared as it is no longer pertinent to the new version of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately I had a great deal of difficulty understanding this manuscript. These are very complex constructs and their explanation inter-relationships among the constructs seem over-simplified. Taking them in in pairs and then creating a graphic with new variables just was not clear to me. And I did not follow the importance to sustainability in light of these questions. It seems a very large stretch to make the connections that are described.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten our first version of the paper following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: Unfortunately I had a great deal of difficulty understanding this manuscript. These are very complex constructs and their explanation inter-relationships among the constructs seem over-simplified. Taking them in in pairs and then creating a graphic with new variables just was not clear to me. And I did not follow the importance to sustainability in light of these questions. It seems a very large stretch to make the connections that are described.
Response 1: We are grateful to the reviewer for their comments. We have attempted to improve the literature review to enhance understanding of the relationship between our proposed model and education for sustainable development. We hope that our efforts, particularly in the new introduction, have improved the quality and understandability of the manuscript.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the earlier version following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: Suggest that the manuscript is proofread by a native English speaker, as there are a few places where statements made are not grammatically correct.
Response 1: We apologise for this aspect. The new version has been thoroughly proofread by a professional English editor.
Point 2: Table 1 is very confusing in its layout and could perhaps be adjusted to indicate more clearly what the authors state it shows, i.e. "A sample of 550 responses was obtained and a summary of their descriptive characteristics is presented in Table 1." This is not clear in the table and requires more explanation. What is meant by "a summary of their descriptive characteristics?"
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. We have modified the structure of the original table in order to offer the information in a clearer and more understandable way. We have also added an introductory paragraph to the table in which we summarise its content. These modifications are shown below:
The fieldwork took place between February and June, 2019, and yielded a sample of 550 valid responses. The data obtained from these responses were analysed to reveal the main characteristics of the sample (Table 1). The final sample comprised students mostly from University 1 (64.4%), with approximate percentages of between 7 and 10 percent for the rest of the participating institutions. From the total of 21 academic disciplines analysed (covering a wide range from business and economic sciences, technology and experimental sciences, health sciences and social sciences), 19 correspond to academic degrees, three to master’s degrees and one to second cycle studies. Most of the students were in the second year of their course (38.2%), followed by third year (20.4%). First and fourth years represent a percentage of around 14%, and postgraduate and secondary school courses, around 7%. The total average age of the students in the sample is 23 years old and their average academic grade is 7.2 out of a maximum of ten. Finally, gender distribution is largely female (70.9%).
Point 3: Table 4 indicates what sorts of questions were asked in the questionnaire. Including a brief example of these earlier on in the methodology section (when the questionnaire is first discussed) may be beneficial.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comment. Following your recommendation we have included a brief description of each one of the scales used, including an example of the questions asked for each of the scales or dimensions. Moreover, please note that two pages later, all the items are shown in Table 4. This is the new explanation included in the text:
All the scales used to measure the constructs corresponded exactly to their theoretical definitions, and were adapted from scales previously used by other authors and tested in earlier studies. The questionnaire items were closed attitudinal questions measured on 7-point Likert-type scales, where 1 represented ‘totally disagree’ and 7, ‘totally agree’ with the statement.
Specifically, EI was measured with a four-dimensional scale (with four items per dimension) proposed by Bracket et al. (2006) including emotional perception (e.g. “I’m aware of the non-verbal messages that other people transmit”), emotional use (e.g. “I trust my emotions to give the right response to problems”), emotional understanding (e.g. “I can explain the emotions I feel”) and emotional management (e.g. “I can handle stressful situations without getting too nervous”). To measure compassion we drew on the five-item scale developed by Petchsawang and Duchon (2009) (e.g. “I tend to feel compassion for people, even if I don’t know them”). Engagement was measured using a three-dimensional scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2011), which included vigour (4 items, e.g. “I feel full of energy when I study”), dedication (5 items, e.g. “My studies inspire me”) and absorption (4 items, e.g. “Time flies when I’m studying”). Finally, academic performance was measured directly from the students’ academic records. Information on the scales’ sources is summarised in Table 2, and the scales themselves can be consulted in Table 4. The covariation matrix is presented in Table 3.
Point 4: Appropriate limitations for the study have been outlined. Implications for educators and institutions could be expanded on briefly.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have expanded implications for educators and institutions as follows:
Regarding the implications for teachers, the research exposes the need to further strengthen the trend to include humanistic and affective subjects in the curricula; such subjects highlight the acquisition of values, the importance of respect and understanding among peers, and the appropriate ethical and emotional development of students. Additionally, it would be useful to incorporate learning methodologies that combine instruction in the content related to the degree subject with others that foster emotional competences. Finally, as part of the incipient promotion of EI and compassion in the classroom, it should not be forgotten that socially sustainable organisations can only be built by training tomorrow’s professionals to be compassionate as an integral part of their education. This ambitious objective also entails training teachers in the necessary competences to impart an education for sustainable development. This challenge should be approached from two angles: the acquisition of such competences per se, and the acquisition of professional competences to give students an education for sustainable development. Teachers, as citizens, also need the skills to act as such in sustainable societies; and as educators of future citizens, the specific competences for their professional careers should also be oriented towards sustainability and should enable them, in turn, to educate students in the principles and values of sustainable development.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Suggest that the manuscript is proofread by a native English speaker, as there are a few places where statements made are not grammatically correct.
Table 1 is very confusing in its layout and could perhaps be adjusted to indicate more clearly what the authors state it shows, i.e. "A sample of 550 responses was obtained and a summary of their descriptive characteristics is presented in Table 1." This is not clear in the table and requires more explanation. What is meant by "a summary of their descriptive characteristics?"
Table 4 indicates what sorts of questions were asked in the questionnaire. Including a brief example of these earlier on in the methodology section (when the questionnaire is first discussed) may be beneficial.
Appropriate limitations for the study have been outlined. Implications for educators and institutions could be expanded on briefly.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Your suggestions on our paper are greatly appreciated. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the earlier version following your recommendations.
For clarity, we respond to your suggestions point by point with explanations of the changes we have made.
All the modifications introduced in the paper are marked in red.
Point 1: Suggest that the manuscript is proofread by a native English speaker, as there are a few places where statements made are not grammatically correct.
Response 1: We apologise for this aspect. The new version has been thoroughly proofread by a professional English editor.
Point 2: Table 1 is very confusing in its layout and could perhaps be adjusted to indicate more clearly what the authors state it shows, i.e. "A sample of 550 responses was obtained and a summary of their descriptive characteristics is presented in Table 1." This is not clear in the table and requires more explanation. What is meant by "a summary of their descriptive characteristics?"
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. We have modified the structure of the original table in order to offer the information in a clearer and more understandable way. We have also added an introductory paragraph to the table in which we summarise its content. These modifications are shown below:
The fieldwork took place between February and June, 2019, and yielded a sample of 550 valid responses. The data obtained from these responses were analysed to reveal the main characteristics of the sample (Table 1). The final sample comprised students mostly from University 1 (64.4%), with approximate percentages of between 7 and 10 percent for the rest of the participating institutions. From the total of 21 academic disciplines analysed (covering a wide range from business and economic sciences, technology and experimental sciences, health sciences and social sciences), 19 correspond to academic degrees, three to master’s degrees and one to second cycle studies. Most of the students were in the second year of their course (38.2%), followed by third year (20.4%). First and fourth years represent a percentage of around 14%, and postgraduate and secondary school courses, around 7%. The total average age of the students in the sample is 23 years old and their average academic grade is 7.2 out of a maximum of ten. Finally, gender distribution is largely female (70.9%).
Table 1. General sample characteristics.
|
Institution: category (%) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
University 1 (64.4) |
University 2 (10.9) |
University 3 (10.0) |
University 4 (7.5) |
Secondary school (7.3) |
|||||||||||||
|
Degree: category (%) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Business Administration1 |
(13.8) |
Industrial design engineering2 |
(2.7) |
Psychology3 |
(13.1) |
||||||||||||
|
Occupational therapy1 |
(10.0) |
Mechanical engineering2 |
(2.2) |
Medicine3 |
(3.1) |
||||||||||||
|
Labour relations and human resources1 |
(9.6) |
Agri-food engineering2 |
(2.2) |
Nursing3 |
(2.2) |
||||||||||||
|
Tourism1 |
(5.1) |
Chemical engineering2 |
(1.6) |
Audiovisual communication4 |
(10.5) |
||||||||||||
|
Finance and accounting1 |
(1.8) |
Electrical engineering2 |
(1.3) |
Advertising and public relations4 |
(4.9) |
||||||||||||
|
Economics1 |
(1.3) |
Industrial technology engineering2 |
(0.9) |
Second cycle business studies1 |
(7.3) |
||||||||||||
|
Master in marketing1 |
(3.6) |
Master in human resources management1 |
(0.7) |
Master in sports management1 |
(2.0) |
||||||||||||
|
Course: category (%) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
First (13.8) |
Second (38.2) |
Third (20.4) |
Fourth (14.0) |
Postgraduate (6.4) |
Secondary school (7.3) |
||||||||||||
|
Gender: category (%) |
Age average |
Academic grade average |
|||||||||||||||
|
Male (29.1) |
Female (70.9) |
23 years old |
7.2 |
||||||||||||||
Note: 1 represents disciplines from business and economic sciences; 2 represents disciplines from technological and experimental sciences; 3 represents disciplines from health sciences; 4 represents disciplines from social sciences.
Point 3: Table 4 indicates what sorts of questions were asked in the questionnaire. Including a brief example of these earlier on in the methodology section (when the questionnaire is first discussed) may be beneficial.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comment. Following your recommendation we have included a brief description of each one of the scales used, including an example of the questions asked for each of the scales or dimensions. Moreover, please note that two pages later, all the items are shown in Table 4. This is the new explanation included in the text:
All the scales used to measure the constructs corresponded exactly to their theoretical definitions, and were adapted from scales previously used by other authors and tested in earlier studies. The questionnaire items were closed attitudinal questions measured on 7-point Likert-type scales, where 1 represented ‘totally disagree’ and 7, ‘totally agree’ with the statement.
Specifically, EI was measured with a four-dimensional scale (with four items per dimension) proposed by Bracket et al. (2006) including emotional perception (e.g. “I’m aware of the non-verbal messages that other people transmit”), emotional use (e.g. “I trust my emotions to give the right response to problems”), emotional understanding (e.g. “I can explain the emotions I feel”) and emotional management (e.g. “I can handle stressful situations without getting too nervous”). To measure compassion we drew on the five-item scale developed by Petchsawang and Duchon (2009) (e.g. “I tend to feel compassion for people, even if I don’t know them”). Engagement was measured using a three-dimensional scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2011), which included vigour (4 items, e.g. “I feel full of energy when I study”), dedication (5 items, e.g. “My studies inspire me”) and absorption (4 items, e.g. “Time flies when I’m studying”). Finally, academic performance was measured directly from the students’ academic records. Information on the scales’ sources is summarised in Table 2, and the scales themselves can be consulted in Table 4. The covariation matrix is presented in Table 3.
Table 2. Scales used.
|
Variables |
References |
Dimensions |
Items |
Scale |
|
Emotional intelligence |
Bracket et al. (2006) |
4 |
16 (4+4+4+4) |
7-point Likert |
|
Compassion |
Petchsawang and Duchon (2009) |
1 |
5 |
7-point Likert |
|
Engagement |
Schaufeli et al. (2011) |
3 |
13 (4+5+4) |
7-point Likert |
Point 4: Appropriate limitations for the study have been outlined. Implications for educators and institutions could be expanded on briefly.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have expanded implications for educators and institutions as follows:
Regarding the implications for teachers, the research exposes the need to further strengthen the trend to include humanistic and affective subjects in the curricula; such subjects highlight the acquisition of values, the importance of respect and understanding among peers, and the appropriate ethical and emotional development of students. Additionally, it would be useful to incorporate learning methodologies that combine instruction in the content related to the degree subject with others that foster emotional competences. Finally, as part of the incipient promotion of EI and compassion in the classroom, it should not be forgotten that socially sustainable organisations can only be built by training tomorrow’s professionals to be compassionate as an integral part of their education. This ambitious objective also entails training teachers in the necessary competences to impart an education for sustainable development. This challenge should be approached from two angles: the acquisition of such competences per se, and the acquisition of professional competences to give students an education for sustainable development. Teachers, as citizens, also need the skills to act as such in sustainable societies; and as educators of future citizens, the specific competences for their professional careers should also be oriented towards sustainability and should enable them, in turn, to educate students in the principles and values of sustainable development.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read with attention your revision and I wish thank you very much for your improvements.
My global idea on your research is that it is very interesting and stimulating from different points of view but in spite of this, its most important weakness is not overcome in this version. You have really done some important changes: for instance, you have used more properly than in the previous version the term “education for sustainable development”, you have well cited Agenda 2030 and the Copernicus University Charter for Sustainable development, but all these references are not developed and used in your paper. They are not used as focus nor as key words of your study/observations/analysis; they are only some references that seems to me very weak and little useful in your discussions (How Agenda 2030 and its goals have “influenced” your research? What is its importance for what you have discussed? And the Copernicus charter? It’ s not clear why you have mentioned it.). They seem to me as some “cherries on the cake” which have not strong relations with the cake.
In this perspective, my idea is supported also by the title you have indicated: Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic / Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education for Sustainable Development. In a paper with this title, in my opinion, ESD should be an important cake ingredient.
If you completely cancel the reference to Sustainable Development, the title should become: Does Emotional Intelligence Influence Academic/Performance? The Role of Compassion And Engagement in Education. In this situation, the research perspectives should be different from the previous and consequently I should wait for a different paper. In your situation, if we use this title for your paper, all what you have discussed could remain the same (except for some phrases in the introduction and in the conclusions paragraphs).
For this, I’m sorry but I cannot see your paper coherent and pertinent with a Journal named “Sustainability”
My Best Regards
