High School Students’ Perceptions of the Role of Social Support in Cultivating Their Interests in and Aspirations to STEM Degrees and Careers—A Middle Eastern Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors.

The document represents an interesting topic, however, I suggest that its structure, functional logic and systematization be reviewed; the main observations are:

 The abstract must be strengthened from its logic, clarity and coherence; the situation under study must be evidenced to a greater degree, objectives, results, conclusions...

 It is important to specify the dimensions considered as the basis for understanding the perceptions of the actors studied.

 “cultivating their Interests in and aspirations” From the abstract this conceptualization should be clear.

“Survey-based quantitative research was employed” important to identify the variables and dimensions that allow the configuration of the instrument.

“a very positive correlation” What are the supports for this statement?

“study revealed that females perceived enhanced social support” What evidence allows to make this affirmation?

“from the present study revealed that females perceived enhanced social support” What could this result be due to? what is inferred?

“the previous path analytic model-based study conducted in 2017 in Qatar” comparison criteria of one model with respect to another.

“o nurture,  cultivate and sustain interest in STEM” the idea is not clear.

In the abstract: complement the article's contributions to the advancement of knowledge of the object).

In the introduction: Some constructs such, self-introspection; didactic, curricular and pedagogical foundations of the STEM approach; student recruitment, persistence, and retention, among others must be discussed and argued from the contrast with the review.

 they must be conceptualized and solidly based on how the STEM approach is conceived in their article, this is not clear.

“Qatar, for example, has taken bold steps to transition to a knowledge-based economy,” What are the characteristics, evidence and descriptors of this process?

“the scarcity of STEM professionals is in evidence” what indicators evidenced it?

 In the introduction, the objectives of the article, research questions should be evidenced. It is important to infer how this research contributes to the advancement of science, its contributions and social impact, identifying direct and indirect beneficiaries, as well as the relevance of this research within the framework of emerging paradigms that explain the subject studied.

It is necessary to further argue how the article contributes to the sciences of sustainability, from a multidimensional, multireferential and interdisciplinary perspective.

The theoretical and empirical gaps of the situation under study should be evidenced to a greater degree, as well as the descriptors associated with the main variables studied; the variables and their dimensions should be described with greater emphasis. It is necessary to strengthen the citations of recent scientific literature that allow contrasting the descriptors of reality and show the state of knowledge related to the situation under study.

The situation under study, as well as the associated descriptors, the importance and relevance of the topic, the sense of contextualization in the region studied must be strengthened in their description; Likewise, the citation system of recent scientific literature related to the subject should be strengthened.

It is important to propose a deductive route; it is necessary that the implications of the problem situation be described on a macro, meso and micro plane; situation that must be described in greater depth because it must be better argued; the problem must start from a more general scope, before falling into the variables of the investigation; that is, they should begin by presenting descriptors of the macro; then locate yourself in the meso and micro plane. It is necessary to conceptualize each of the dimensions of the variables worked on, not limiting yourself to identifying them, but explaining and arguing how they are being conceptualized in the scope of your article.

In the introduction and in the review of the literature, the object of study in higher education must be clearly contextualized, these descriptors and characteristics must be strengthened.

The review of the literature must show a critical and argumentative apparatus based on the main constructs, discussed and argued from the contrast with the review of the literature, correspondence with objective lops, these constructs represent central axes of sequentiality and discussion in this section.

It is important to review the statement of each section in the literature review in such a way that a sense of totality and completeness is evidenced with the theoretical system that it represents.

It is necessary to strengthen the citation system of recent scientific literature that allows contrasting the theoretical postulates presented.

The theoretical foundations section should be strengthened; it is necessary to build a critical apparatus around key aspects, such as the didactic, pedagogical and curricular dimensions of the STEM approach; how the STEM approach contributes to sustainability processes;

“STEM-related learning and career orientation implicate a complex phenomenon that 61

involves myriad underlying influences, such as personal (age, gender, grade, nationality,

etc.), motivational (self-efficacy, confidence, expectation, etc.), and environmental” It is important to delve into these descriptors as fundamentals of the STEM approach

“students’ perceptions of the role of social support 2 in cultivating their interests in and aspirations to STEM”, This idea is not argued, it must be discussed and argued, as well as substantiated in greater depth.

“this study, we intended to comprehend societal supports in molding students' attitudes” this idea should be a reference to be discussed and argued in a section of the literature review.

The review of the literature should show the sequentiality of ideas between paragraphs from one section to another to guarantee internal coherence, sudden ruptures are perceived between one section and another.

I suggest that the methodology can be configured in terms of the logic and presentation of its components: The methodology must be described and organized in understandable way for the reader. In each component of the methodology, a more detailed description should be organized.

Organize this section considering each of the components identified below:: It is necessary to identify and justify the typology of the article.  Is important specify the type of design.  Likewise, the information gathering techniques and instruments must be specified; Likewise, The procedural systematization must be organize the research stages, in correspondence with the objectives of the article, type of research according to knowledge to be produced and expected products. Provide greater evidence of the operationalization of its variables, main dimensions and indicators that allow measuring the behavior of its fundamental variables.

The indicators worked on in correspondence with each of the dimensions and variables identified must be clearly identified.

It is important to argue the degree of representativeness of the analysis worked in correspondence with the sense of totality and completeness of the investigated object, possibilities that the results can be generalized.

Organize a results and discussion section where it is considered a better correspondence with the procedural systematization in the methodology, that is, how each component of the design leads to the different sections that are presented in the results. Review the correspondence between the methodological systematization and the systematization of the results, attend to variables, dimensions and indicators and their operationalization.

Organize the discussion in such a way that they are evident in relation to the objectives; there is no evidence of contrast between the objectives - supporting theory - meaning of the data itself - argument of the researchers.

In the section of conclusions argue correspondence with the identified objectives; demonstrate possibilities of generalization of the research to contexts with similar characteristics. Conclusions must transcend results.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript presents a topic of interest to the scientific community. The theoretical framework is correctly referenced, that is, it includes a large number of recent citations. Likewise, the design followed is coherent. Participants are carefully described. The only suggestion would be to review the format of the figures so that all the legends comply with the same and the explanation is with the initial in capital letters. In the case of the figures, it is also suggested to review the percentages since the y-axis should be 100% in all of them. Likewise, it is recommended to eliminate the zero in front of the point in those values ​​that allow it and reinforce a little the conclusion in relation to the research questions posed, that is, to what extent each of them is answered with the design carried out. For the rest, congratulate the authors for the work developed.

Author Response

please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The revised manuscript is a better version of the original one. 

Author Response

please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The revised manuscript has been improved. I respect the authors attend to meet the suggestions of the reviewers. Many points are much more clear now and now it is more suitable for an international audience. 

Few changes are needed. It can be a part of editing. 

Author Response

please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

We acknowledge the authors' time and effort spent in revising their quality paper.

The revised manuscript has been improved and warrants publication in Sustainability Journal. 

Author Response

no comments to address

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

A cordial greeting.

 

It is evident that the authors applied the adjustments and suggestions in the article, which has allowed to have a better product.

 

Thank you

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

The authors provided us with a well-prepared paper reflecting an interesting research topic student-wide, nation-wide and globally. Our recommendations to improve this adequately worked out manuscript further, would be the following, please:

a) Kindly include a conceptual model reflecting the study's findings, please and b) Please perform additional spell check for minor typos (e.g. line 26 have not has; lines 55-59: please rephrase this paragraph for further clarity; line 63: self-efficacy might be better wording; line 154: in the third phase of the survey implementation).

This exploratory research addresses whether high school learners’ perceptions of social support seem to foster their interests/inclinations for STEM-related programmes and corresponding vocational/career development selection in Arabian Gulf State of Qatar (following Qatar’s National Vision 2030).

STEM education-associated research tends to align with UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 global enquiry sought by interdisciplinary assessment. This paper addresses this line of research in a way that extends popular STEM education programme development research. It focuses on a learner cohort of great interest for STEM education-linked exploration (i.e. high school students) and investigates features of the social environment (i.e. social support: family, teachers, society) in affecting participants’ attributes for STEM-associated courses and career development choices. Therefore, it addresses a particular gap in the field of STEM education-related research (i.e. career development) under different inclusive lens (i.e. elements of social support), by extended research performed and of particular interest and relevance both nation-wide and cross-culturally.

At a generic outline, it contributes to examining attributes of social support and career development in high school. Extending current STEM education-related research beyond STEM education-programme development by focusing on exploring inclusive features of STEM-associated social environment and career development selection in favour of behavioural change for UN SD 2030 and Qatar National Vision 2030.

This research seems to be an exploratory quantitative one. It corroborates other STEM-related ones in different regions (i.e. Turkey: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9729-4).  The authors’ convenient sampling method followed might be further included as a point of reference in the limitations manuscript section.

I think that the conclusions seem to be consistent with the findings and argumentation illustrated and tend to address the main question issued.

 

The manuscript is adequately prepared in terms of English academic writing.

Our recommendation would be to perform additional spell check for minor typos (e.g. line 26 have not has; lines 55-59: please rephrase this paragraph for further clarity; line 63: self-efficacy might be better wording; line 154: in the third phase of the survey implementation), please. 

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is interesting that we have a clear presentation about the framework in Qatar and internationally as well. 

Authors could underline further the significance of the specific study for the international audience. 

2. The research questions are clear and helpful for the understanding of the purpose of the study. 

Although I disagree to pose the questions as having a possible answer of yes or no (as RQ2) I can accept it at this format. 

3. I cannot understand the high differences at the participants between expatriates and qatari and between males and females. Previously there is a statement that 1075 students from Qatar participated in the study. How then it is possible to have this high percentage of expatriates?

Further explanations about the context in Qatar is needed. I understand that few points are found at the discussion, however I believe that there are necessary previously. 

4. it is extremely useful and understandable the presentation of the results in respect to the posed research questions. 

 

There are few typographical mistakes which could be found through proof reading. For example after (13-14) delete the .

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.     The manuscript presents the findings of a survey-based quantitative research study that investigated high school students' perceptions of social support to their STEM interests and career aspirations. The study focused on family support, teachers' support, and society's support. Here are my comments:

2.     This paper is a very lucid exploration of high school students’ perceptions of the role of social support in the cultivation of the interests of the students to pursue STEM degrees and careers.

3.     The article is uniquely presented  - fresh ideas, an interesting apposition of variables and creative interlacing of narratives. The strength of the article is perceptibly displayed in its contribution to scholarship, the knowledge gap identified, the cohesiveness of thoughts, the methodological accuracy, the complete and delicate referencing and the airtight presentation of arguments.

4.     The writing is a mix of simplicity and profundity in writing style and the ease of understanding it offers for the general readership of the article.

5.     The gender-based differences in perceived social support, particularly with females perceiving more support from society and teachers, raise interesting questions about the factors influencing gender disparities in STEM. Exploring the underlying reasons behind these differences can help identify strategies to promote gender equality in STEM education and careers.

6.     The conclusion answers the research questions stated and the hypotheses, soundly tested and measured, were carefully supported or refuted with corresponding statistical data analysis.

7.     Suggestions:

a.     Discuss potential limitations in more detail: The narrative acknowledges the limitations of the study but does not elaborate on them. It would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive discussion of the limitations, such as potential biases in self-reported survey responses or the study's cross-sectional nature. This would give readers a better understanding of the study's scope and potential implications.

 

b.     Expand on the practical implications: The narrative briefly mentions that the study's findings can guide policymakers, educators, academics, and researchers. To enhance the practical relevance of the research, it would be helpful to provide specific examples or recommendations on how stakeholders can utilize the findings to improve STEM education and support students' career aspirations.

 

8.     Overall, the article is an excellent manuscript that invites us to rethink the importance of social support in cultivating students' STEM interests and career aspirations.

Minor grammar check may be in order. 

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf