Whether Socioeconomic Status Matters in Accessing Residential College: Role of RC in Addressing Academic Achievement Gaps to Ensure Sustainable Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an issue that is certainly relevant by focusing on the inequalities within the education system due to SES. However, perhaps more emphasis should be placed by the authors on how this issue fits into the broader one of sustainability, justifying publication in this journal.

There are also some somewhat convoluted passages, e.g. on page 6 where the terms "appropriate sample size" " sample size" and "total sample size" are used but it seems to me that they refer to n in eq.(1).

In my opinion the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is unnecessary and does not add much, in any case table 3 is unclear, the items are unknown, and the p column is meaningless.

Figure 2 on page 10 should be deleted as it is part of Figure 2 on page 11.

The regression results are interesting but the format of Table 5 needs to be revised, it needs to be clarified in the caption what t,p, and \beta are, beta also specified in the text.

Author Response

Dated: December 8, 2023

To

Editor

Sustainability

 

Subject: Resubmission of the revised manuscript of SUSTAINABILITY-2745093

 

Dear Editor

We appreciate your efforts in arranging the review for our paper and providing the referees’ reports. We would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on improving our study. Four reviewers reviewed the paper and each of them has given some forms of correction that differs from each other.  Although, the corrections from each reviewer are not very enormous, the total corrections have become quite extended since four different forms of correction are needed to be implemented. This has made an extensive change throughout the paper.

 

Moreover, following the suggestions of the reviewers, this paper is edited by a native speaker thoroughly to make better readability for international readers, hence linguistic changes occur throughout the paper (certificate is attached). 

 

Having said that some comments presented conflicting perspectives, for instance, one reviewer suggested deleting the figure, while another proposed adding more figures. We have addressed all of their possible comments. These changes are reported in blue colour text. The following are detailed responses addressing each comment in addition to this generic comment. We hope that the revised version will address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

 

We appreciate your time and consideration.

 

 

Thanking you,

 

 

Reviewer 1:

Comment1: The manuscript addresses an issue that is certainly relevant by focusing on the inequalities within the education system due to SES. However, perhaps more emphasis should be placed by the authors on how this issue fits into the broader one of sustainability, justifying publication in this journal.

Response: Thank you so much.

We are grateful for your valuable time in reading our paper. Sustainable education refers to actions that an institution may initiate to deliver a substantial study program. These actions may include upgrading the program and an institutional developmental schema. Residential colleges in China, as an innovative educational system, aim to provide an inclusive and equal living and learning environment for students from diverse SES backgrounds. This study mainly intends to examine whether residential colleges contribute to addressing educational disparities in access and academic attainment by SES. So, it closely aligns with sustainable education, which fits the scope of this journal.

 

Comment 2: There are also some somewhat convoluted passages, e.g. on page 6 where the terms "appropriate sample size" " sample size" and "total sample size" are used but it seems to me that they refer to n in eq.(1).

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the convoluted content. Please see page  6.

 

Comment 3: In my opinion the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is unnecessary and does not add much, in any case table 3 is unclear, the items are unknown, and the p column is meaningless.

 

Response: Thank you so much. The primary objective of the questionnaire in research is to obtain relevant information in the most reliable and valid manner. Thus, the accuracy and consistency of the questionnaire form a significant aspect of research methodology, known as validity and reliability. Moreover, the questionnaire is adapted from existing instruments, and the relationship between the variables is already known. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is suitable when the underlying factor structure is identified. Following your suggestion, we have changed the unclear table and provided more explanation about the results of CFA. Please see page 7 and Table 2.

 

Comment 4: Figure 2 on page 10 should be deleted as it is part of Figure 2 on page 11..

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have deleted this figure.

 

Comment 5: The regression results are interesting but the format of Table 5 needs to be revised, it needs to be clarified in the caption what t,p, and \beta are, beta also specified in the text.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have clarified p,  β. "Here, β represents the regression coefficient, and the p-value indicates the level of significance within a statistical hypothesis test." We have also revised Table 5. Please see Page 11.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is meaningful for sustainable education in China. Concerning the quality of the manusript, several issues need to be addressed: 

It is quite strange for authors to draw such a research model as  the relationship between SES and CGPA is not marked. Meanwhile, there are two hypothesis 1 in this section. 

Research context may be given in the first section or can be combined with research design. 

You have already proposed two hypotheses in the second section, then what is the meaning to justify a quantitative method in section four?

Regarding the sample, how did you approach these samples in different universities? Is there any support from each university in three regions?

Theoretical contribution is not emphasized in the end and also it is suggested to combine section 6 and 7 together. 

There are some minor language issuees and format issues like 'in addition' in line 465. Please correct them properly. 

 

 

Author Response

Dated: December 8, 2023

To

Editor

Sustainability

 

Subject: Resubmission of the revised manuscript of SUSTAINABILITY-2745093

 

Dear Editor

We appreciate your efforts in arranging the review for our paper and providing the referees’ reports. We would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on improving our study. Four reviewers reviewed the paper and each of them has given some forms of correction that differs from each other.  Although, the corrections from each reviewer are not very enormous, the total corrections have become quite extended since four different forms of correction are needed to be implemented. This has made an extensive change throughout the paper.

 

Moreover, following the suggestions of the reviewers, this paper is edited by a native speaker thoroughly to make better readability for international readers, hence linguistic changes occur throughout the paper (certificate is attached). 

 

Having said that some comments presented conflicting perspectives, for instance, one reviewer suggested deleting the figure, while another proposed adding more figures. We have addressed all of their possible comments. These changes are reported in blue colour text. The following are detailed responses addressing each comment in addition to this generic comment. We hope that the revised version will address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

 

We appreciate your time and consideration.

 

 

Thanking you,

Reviewer 2:

Comments:

The study is meaningful for sustainable education in China. Concerning the quality of the manusript, several issues need to be addressed.

Response: Thank you so much. We are grateful for your valuable time in reading our paper. Further, we are grateful to you for conducting a constructive review to improve the manuscript. Accordingly, we have carefully addressed each recommendation. Below, we present point-by-point responses to your comments in blue.

 

Comment 1: It is quite strange for authors to draw such a research model as  the relationship between SES and CGPA is not marked. Meanwhile, there are two hypothesis 1 in this section..

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have clarified the relationship between SES and academic achievement in section "2.1. Relationship between SES and Education" (Page 3). And we have revised two hypotheses 1, please see Page 4.

 

Comment 2: Research context may be given in the first section or can be combined with research design.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have combined the research context with research methodology.

 

Comment 3: You have already proposed two hypotheses in the second section, then what is the meaning to justify a quantitative method in section four?

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have deleted the content of justification a quantitative method.

 

Comment 4: Regarding the sample, how did you approach these samples in different universities? Is there any support from each university in three regions?

Response: Thank you so much. We have got permission and support from the sample universities. " Prior to initiating the collection of data, explicit permission and support were obtained from the universities that comprised the sample”. “Questionnaires were distributed to RC students with the assistance of the administrative faculty from the sample institutions to enhance the response rate and achieve the second-ary data on academic achievement." (Page 8)

 

Comment 5: Theoretical contribution is not emphasized in the end and also it is suggested to combine section 6 and 7 together..

Response: Thank you so much. Following  your suggestion, we have updated the content of theoretical implications. We have combined sections 6 and 7 together. Please see pages 12 and 13.

 

Comment 6: There are some minor language issuees and format issues like 'in addition' in line 465. Please correct them properly.

Response: Thank you so much. We have corrected the language and format issues you mentioned. We pay sincere attention to improving the quality of the ENGLISH language and farmat. In addition, we have thoroughly edited the revised version with a professional ENGLISH language editor.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In its current form, it is difficult to make a clear connection between the research context and the need associated with the specifics of the research design chosen. The authors should consider restructuring these sections.

The authors should consider including the potential limitations of the quantitative method chosen and how it compares with alternative quantitative methods. 

The authors should consider providing more details about the selection of the specific universities, and the sampling method used, to answer the question of why and how this is an appropriate representation of the larger population.

The authors should provide some reasoning behind why the specific formula for sample size calculation is being used and how the selected sample size of 439 is appropriate.

The authors should consider providing more details about the validation process used to gauge the validity and reliability of the instrument used.

The authors should consider providing more details about the process used to maintain data integrity for the data collected like personal profiles, addresses, CGPA, etc.

The authors should provide some more clarity as to how the SES factors interact with and influence the dimensions of the RC.

The authors have provided only 2 figures to visualize the data analysis. It is difficult for the reader to understand the implications and the results from the data analysis based on the two figures and the few tables that have been provided. The authors should add more figures to better visualize the results.

The authors should consider providing some more broader implications of the research findings on equality in higher education and in general discuss if the results align with or contest existing trends and theories for equal access to education within the context of China in particular.

The authors should provide more details about the interpretation of the coefficient differences listed in Table 6

 

 

Author Response

Dated: December 8, 2023

To

Editor

Sustainability

 

Subject: Resubmission of the revised manuscript of SUSTAINABILITY-2745093

 

Dear Editor

We appreciate your efforts in arranging the review for our paper and providing the referees’ reports. We would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on improving our study. Four reviewers reviewed the paper and each of them has given some forms of correction that differs from each other.  Although, the corrections from each reviewer are not very enormous, the total corrections have become quite extended since four different forms of correction are needed to be implemented. This has made an extensive change throughout the paper.

 

Moreover, following the suggestions of the reviewers, this paper is edited by a native speaker thoroughly to make better readability for international readers, hence linguistic changes occur throughout the paper (certificate is attached). 

 

Having said that some comments presented conflicting perspectives, for instance, one reviewer suggested deleting the figure, while another proposed adding more figures. We have addressed all of their possible comments. These changes are reported in blue colour text. The following are detailed responses addressing each comment in addition to this generic comment. We hope that the revised version will address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Thanking you,

Reviewer 3:

Comment 1: In its current form, it is difficult to make a clear connection between the research context and the need associated with the specifics of the research design chosen. The authors should consider restructuring these sections.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have combined the research context with the methodology section. Please see Page 5.

 

Comment 2:

The authors should consider including the potential limitations of the quantitative method chosen and how it compares with alternative quantitative methods.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have updated the potential limitations of the quantitative research method. Please see Page 13.

 

Comment 3: The authors should consider providing more details about the selection of the specific universities, and the sampling method used, to answer the question of why and how this is an appropriate representation of the larger population.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have explained more about sampling and the reason why using these sampling methods. Please see Page 6.

 

Comment 4: The authors should provide some reasoning behind why the specific formula for sample size calculation is being used and how the selected sample size of 439 is appropriate.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have provided the reasoning for the sampling method and sample size.  Please see Page 6.

 

Comment 5: The authors should consider providing more details about the validation process used to gauge the validity and reliability of the instrument used.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have improved the content on validity and reliability of the instrument. Please see Page 7.

 

Comment 6: The authors should consider providing more details about the process used to maintain data integrity for the data collected like personal profiles, addresses, CGPA, etc.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the process of data collection. Please see Pages 8.

 

Comment 7: The authors should provide some more clarity as to how the SES factors interact with and influence the dimensions of the RC.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have explained more about how the SES factors interact with and influence the dimensions of the RC. Please see Page 12.

 

Comment 8: The authors have provided only 2 figures to visualize the data analysis. It is difficult for the reader to understand the implications and the results from the data analysis based on the two figures and the few tables that have been provided. The authors should add more figures to better visualize the results.

Response: Thank you so much. For this study, the first research question is examined using descriptive analysis. So, the bar figure is used to visually display the diversity of SES between RC respondents and the national population. However, the second research question is explored with regression analysis, and the results are suitably explained by tables. For the third research question, the result is explained based on the results of RQ1 and RQ2. That’s why there are no more figures in this study.

 

Comment 9: The authors should consider providing some more broader implications of the research findings on equality in higher education and in general discuss if the results align with or contest existing trends and theories for equal access to education within the context of China in particular.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have improved the implication section.

 

Comment 10: The authors should provide more details about the interpretation of the coefficient differences listed in Table 6.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have provided more explanations on the coefficient differences listed in Table 6. Please see Page 11.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this is a remarkably interesting idea, the approach to this study needs work.  

1. 1) Your title does not match the study. In the title you are asking if SES (socioeconomic status) is a factor in access to RC colleges; however, your study is examining if RC colleges contribute to more sustainable education despite SES status.  

2. 2) Furthermore, your model suggests that you are examining the impact of RCs on academic success with an influence of SES status.  

3. 3) You have both research questions and hypotheses; you do not need both and since you use quantitative data the hypotheses make sense. Besides, you never address the research questions after you list them in the paper.  

4. 4) Your sample size and rationale need more explanation. I understand that China is a large country and has a lot of students, so it makes sense to narrow the focus. However, why not just use the total of students from the three universities that you selected? Even using the proportional stratified sample could have resulted in some bias since the proportions of SES groups were so different from the national sample. That you narrowed the sample before collecting the data suggests that you did not survey the students but instead accessed their data from the universities, but this is not clear.  

5. 5) Again, you need to be clearer as to where you got the data and how it was collected. It is unclear if you surveyed the students are just collected their data from the universities. Either way, you should have institutional protocol review.  

6. 6) In line 222, when you mention non-undergraduate institutions, do you mean graduate institutions? This needs to be clarified. This may be obvious for someone from China but not for people from other parts of the world.  

7. 7) I found it to be a bit disconnected when you used the numbers instead of the names for references in the middle of the sentence. For example, in line 76 ‘The authors of [24,25,27-29, 32] …. would be better if you had listed the names. Having the numbers at the end of the sentence is fine, but in the middle disrupts the reading flow to me.  

8.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few minor grammatical issues, but overall, very well written

Line 194 do not need the word many

Line 137 I think you meant facutly and staff

Author Response

Dated: December 8, 2023

To

Editor

Sustainability

 

Subject: Resubmission of the revised manuscript of SUSTAINABILITY-2745093

 

Dear Editor

We appreciate your efforts in arranging the review for our paper and providing the referees’ reports. We would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on improving our study. Four reviewers reviewed the paper and each of them has given some forms of correction that differs from each other.  Although, the corrections from each reviewer are not very enormous, the total corrections have become quite extended since four different forms of correction are needed to be implemented. This has made an extensive change throughout the paper.

 

Moreover, following the suggestions of the reviewers, this paper is edited by a native speaker thoroughly to make better readability for international readers, hence linguistic changes occur throughout the paper (certificate is attached). 

 

Having said that some comments presented conflicting perspectives, for instance, one reviewer suggested deleting the figure, while another proposed adding more figures. We have addressed all of their possible comments. These changes are reported in blue colour text. The following are detailed responses addressing each comment in addition to this generic comment. We hope that the revised version will address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Thanking you,

 

Reviewer 4:

Comment 1: Your title does not match the study. In the title you are asking if SES (socioeconomic status) is a factor in access to RC colleges; however, your study is examining if RC colleges contribute to more sustainable education despite SES status. Furthermore, your model suggests that you are examining the impact of RCs on academic success with an influence of SES status.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the title. We have also improved the research model.

 

Comment 2: You have both research questions and hypotheses; you do not need both and since you use quantitative data the hypotheses make sense. Besides, you never address the research questions after you list them in the paper.

Response: Thank you so much. In this study, the first and third research questions don’t involve hypotheses. Only the second research question involves hypotheses. Hence, this study clearly lists both the research questions and hypotheses. The results of RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 are identified on pages 10, 11, and 12, respectively.

 

Comment 3: Your sample size and rationale need more explanation. I understand that China is a large country and has a lot of students, so it makes sense to narrow the focus. However, why not just use the total of students from the three universities that you selected? Even using the proportional stratified sample could have resulted in some bias since the proportions of SES groups were so different from the national sample. That you narrowed the sample before collecting the data suggests that you did not survey the students but instead accessed their data from the universities, but this is not clear.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have provided a more detailed explanation of the rationale for sampling techniques. Moreover, this paper used data from the fieldwork conducted as part of a doctoral program. We have extended the data of this study from the doctoral program. In addition, we have calculated the sample size using the total number of students from the sample universities in different districts in China. Then, proportional stratified sampling is used to determine the sample size in each district, guaranteeing that each segment has an equal probability of being chosen and therefore increasing the representativeness of our sample.

 

Comment 4: Again, you need to be clearer as to where you got the data and how it was collected. It is unclear if you surveyed the students are just collected their data from the universities. Either way, you should have institutional protocol review.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have updated the prodecure and the ethical issue for data collection. Please see Pages 8 and 14.

 

Comment 5: In line 222, when you mention non-undergraduate institutions, do you mean graduate institutions? This needs to be clarified. This may be obvious for someone from China but not for people from other parts of the world.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the confusing expression. Please see Page 6.

 

Comment 6: I found it to be a bit disconnected when you used the numbers instead of the names for references in the middle of the sentence. For example, in line 76 ‘The authors of [24,25,27-29, 32] …. would be better if you had listed the names. Having the numbers at the end of the sentence is fine, but in the middle disrupts the reading flow to me.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the format of the citation.

 

Comment 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language. There are a few minor grammatical issues, but overall, very well written . Line 194 do not need the word many; Line 137 I think you meant facutly and staff.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have improved the language. In addition, we have thoroughly edited the revised version with a professional ENGLISH language editor.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors in the revised version of the manuscript incorporated all the indications of my report. So for me the article can be published in its current form 

Author Response

Thank you so much for accepting the paper 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the revised manuscript, I still have three concerns toward the manuscript. 

First, the second section is suggested to change into literature review and hypothesis development.

Second, in the framework the arrows are mis-used as normally arrows are used to show hypothesis, but the author used the arrows for two different functions in the figure. 

Third, the conclusion section needs to be enhanced as only presenting many figures without a solid discussion abour theoretical and practical contribution is not a good choice. 

Author Response

Dated: December 14, 2023

To

Editor

Sustainability

Subject: Resubmission of the revised manuscript of SUSTAINABILITY-2745093

Dear Editor

We appreciate your efforts in arranging the review for our paper and providing the referees’ reports. We would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on improving our study. Two reviewers provided minor comments, all of which we have addressed. These changes are reported in green text. Detailed responses addressing each comment are provided below, in addition to this generic comment. We hope that the revised version will address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Thanking you,

Reviewer 2:

After reading the revised manuscript, I still have three concerns toward the manuscript.  First, the second section is suggested to change into literature review and hypothesis development.

Response: Thank you so much. We are grateful for your valuable time in reading our paper. Following your suggestion, we have changed the subtitle of the second section “2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development “. Please see page 3.

Second, in the framework the arrows are mis-used as normally arrows are used to show hypothesis, but the author used the arrows for two different functions in the figure.

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the framework.  Please see page 5.

Third, the conclusion section needs to be enhanced as only presenting many figures without a solid discussion about theoretical and practical contribution is not a good choice.Response: Thank you so much. We don't have any figures in conclusion. However, in the implication of the research, we have brought some theories with references and will show the relationship or de-relationship of our research with these theories. Following your suggestion, we have revised the theoretical and practical contributions. Please see pages 12 and 13.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you so much for accepting the paper 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I am amazed as to how quickly you reviesed the paper, you did address my concerns.  I did find a few places where a name would have been better than a number for the reference but for the most part this was taken care of.  

I appriciate that the authors mentioned that they did have informed concent in the paper, but they should change that at the end to avoid confusion.  

I have to wonder why they felt the need to redo the sample size and how they managed to redo the analysis so quickly.  

Author Response

Dated: December 14, 2023

To

Editor

Sustainability

Subject: Resubmission of the revised manuscript of SUSTAINABILITY-2745093

Dear Editor

We appreciate your efforts in arranging the review for our paper and providing the referees’ reports. We would also like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments on improving our study. Two reviewers provided minor comments, all of which we have addressed. These changes are reported in green text. Detailed responses addressing each comment are provided below, in addition to this generic comment. We hope that the revised version will address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Thanking you,

Reviewer 4:

 

While I am amazed as to how quickly you revised the paper, you did address my concerns.  I did find a few places where a name would have been better than a number for the reference but for the most part this was taken care of. 

 

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion on text citation, we have made revisions. Please refer to page 2.

 

I appreciate that the authors mentioned that they did have informed concent in the paper, but they should change that at the end to avoid confusion. 

Response: Thank you so much. Following your suggestion, we have revised the related content to avoid confusion. Please see page 8.

 

I have to wonder why they felt the need to redo the sample size and how they managed to redo the analysis so quickly.

 

Response: Thank you so much. We appreciate your valuable time in reading our paper. As this paper is part of a PhD thesis, we have a considerable number of samples. To enhance representativeness, we have increased the sample size. Additionally, this is an ongoing project for us where a PhD candidate is working full-time and she is waiting for final defence, which we work on every day as part of our routine. Therefore, we can promptly provide the necessary updates.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf