Postsecondary Students’ Social Stress and Learning Styles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study offers a comprehensive examination of university students' experiences of social stress and its impact on learning. The implications of interacting variables with social stress have been thoroughly considered, providing a robust foundation for future research.

Abstract.

It would be good to see an elaboration on the methods e.g. sample size, which specific measures were involved, data collection tools.

A stronger statement around implications would lift this abstract i.e. why the future research is important.

Introduction

I would consider the flow of the argument here. Each paragraph feels slightly detached and fragmented. Some signposting sentences to link ideas between paragraphs would be beneficial to allow the reader to follow the narrative clearly.

There could be more about why the demographic variables mentioned are important. These come slightly late in the introduction.

I’m left feeling slightly unclear why this research has chosen to focus on both on-campus and abroad settings, I can understand why, but I think this could be clearer (probably only needs a sentence to clarify the abroad setting part!).

Methods

This could be broken down into further subheadings to align with a more traditional research methods section e.g. study design, population, data collection, materials, data analysis.

Discussion

Some elaboration of points would be useful:

Expand on the link between being a white male and lower social stress scores, possibly discussing potential socio-cultural factors.

Further explore the significant association between increased social stress and non-Caucasian populations, discussing potential implications.

Author Response

We thank reviewers for suggestions to improve this manuscript. All reviewers' comments and our corresponding answers are included in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting study. 

I just have a few suggestions:

1) references are needed for lines 38 and 46.

2) The learning styles (Kolb's theory) information could have been clearer and sooner in the introduction to help set the sense.  

3) The descriptive statistics were a little unclear why each question had its own descriptive statictisc score (when this was not a scale development paper).

4) Some of the results information had some interpretation - this would have been better in the discussion (for example, in line 280).

5) A longer discussion and linking more previous research would have strengthened this further. 

Overall it was easy to read, just needed some proof-reading. 

Author Response

We thank reviewers for suggestions to improve this manuscript. All reviewers' comments and our corresponding answers are included in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors gather the necessary and sufficient information to make an adequate approach to the problem they address the subject of the same and support objectively and conceptually the scales that will be used to measure the variables of the work the evaluation and analysis of the results are appropriate to the methodological approach as well as to the properties and characteristics of the variables a difficulty that arises is the size and decrease of the n resulting in the answers received decrease the representativeness of the sample they make an approach of the ethical considerations carried out in the study although they do not present information on informed consents behind the work there is a review of an ethics committee that has approved this study the results are congruent and clearly presented in the discussion the authors recognize that the study is congruent and clearly presented in the discussion the results are congruent and clearly presented in the discussion although they do not present information on informed consents behind the work there is a review by an ethics committee that has approved the study the results are congruent and are clearly presented in the discussion the authors recognize that there is a greater need to delve deeper into the research however they do not return to the part in which the low percentage of responses given to the instrument or instruments reduce the probabilities of inference of the results obtained to the populations from which the sample that was studied in their research was obtained.

Author Response

We thank reviewers for suggestions to improve this manuscript. All reviewers' comments and our corresponding answers are included in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf