The Effect of Teacher Support on the Sustainable Online Academic Self-Efficacy of College Students: The Mediating Effect of Academic Procrastination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors report a study about self-assessment of student which report the correlation of teacher support in classes vs. procrastination. This work seems to be a important addition on known influence factors for online learning, there is only a minor revision necessary.

11.       Introduction: sentence 1 no reference,

22.       Introduction sentence 2: no reference

33.       “It can be seen that the improvement of academic self-efficacy in the online learning environment is an important way to improve the learning online learning effect and improve the quality of learning.” Reference missing.

44.       “The role of the learner’s academic self-efficacy, influencing factors, and intervention pathways.” Reference missing

55.       “In studies on the role of academic self-efficacy, researchers have used academic self-efficacy as a mediating variable to study the causal relationship when academic self-efficacy is held constant.” Reference missing

66.       Provider of SPSS software missing

77.       Provider of Mplus software missing.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled " The Effect of Teacher Support on Sustainable Online Academic Self-Efficacy of College Students: The Mediating Effect of Academic Procrastination". We appreciate your thorough review and insightful feedback. We are committed to addressing the points you raised to enhance the quality of our work.

Introduction:

1. Sentence 1: We acknowledge the absence of a reference and will ensure to provide proper citation.
2. Sentence 2: We appreciate your observation and will include the necessary reference.

Main Content:

3. The statement regarding the improvement of academic self-efficacy in the online learning environment lacking a reference will be appropriately cited.

Further References:

4. The missing references related to the role of the learner's academic self-efficacy, influencing factors, and intervention pathways will be included.

Mention of Academic Self-Efficacy as a Mediating Variable:

5. We understand the importance of providing references in studies involving academic self-efficacy as a mediating variable. Proper citations will be incorporated to address this concern.

Software Providers:

6. The provider of SPSS software and Mplus software will be clearly mentioned in the manuscript.

We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which will undoubtedly contribute to the overall improvement of our manuscript. We will work diligently to make the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations.

If you have any additional comments or suggestions, please feel free to let us know. We look forward to resubmitting the revised manuscript.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Hong Duan

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2870060

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented research "The Effect of Teacher Support on Sustainable Online Academic Self-Efficacy of College Students: The Mediating Effect of Aca-demic Procrastination".

The research has number of drawbacks:

1. Authors proposed main 4 hypothesis and 9 additional. It is too much for the research paper. These hypothesis have never been directly mentioned in discussion or conclusion so we do not have overview what happened with them.

2. In addition some of the hypothesis are too basic. 

3. Authors should present full research. Questionnaire and complete methodology.

4. We need much more information about sample. Giving 827 answers out of 830 it is not enough. We do not know about the structure of these students, field of study, year, ....

5. Data analysis is basic and poor.

6. Conclusion and discussion should be completely rewritten.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proof reading

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled " The Effect of Teacher Support on Sustainable Online Academic Self-Efficacy of College Students: The Mediating Effect of Academic Procrastination". We appreciate your insights, and we are committed to addressing the concerns you raised to improve the quality of our research.

1. Hypotheses:

We appreciate the reviewer's consideration of the number of hypotheses proposed in the manuscript. We believe that the inclusion of the main 4 hypotheses and 9 additional hypotheses is warranted to comprehensively address the multifaceted nature of our research objectives. However, we understand the concern raised about their absence from the discussion or conclusion. In the revised manuscript, we will ensure that each hypothesis is explicitly referenced and discussed in the relevant sections, providing a clear overview of our findings and their implications. We value your feedback and believe that this adjustment will enhance the overall coherence of the paper. Thank you for your thoughtful review, and we look forward to incorporating these improvements.

2.Basic Hypotheses:

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback on the complexity of some of our hypotheses. While we recognize that simplicity is crucial for clarity, we believe that the inclusion of certain foundational or basic hypotheses is essential to establishing a solid theoretical framework. However, we will carefully review and refine the language of these hypotheses in the revised manuscript to strike an optimal balance between simplicity and depth. We want to ensure that all hypotheses contribute meaningfully to the overall study objectives. Your insights are valuable, and we will take these considerations into account during the revision process. Thank you for your thoughtful review.

3.Complete Research Presentation:

We understand your expectations and expect us to provide complete research information, including questionnaires and a complete methodology. During the revision process, we will ensure that a more detailed methodology is provided in the paper to clearly articulate the study design, data collection process, and analytical techniques. We strive to present key information in a limited space to ensure that readers have a more complete understanding of our research.

4.Sample Information:

We will provide more detailed information about the sample, including the structure of the students, their fields of study, academic years, and relevant demographics. This will offer a clearer understanding of the study population.

5.Data Analysis:

Your feedback on the basic and poor nature of the data analysis is duly noted. We will enhance the data analysis to meet rigorous standards and provide a more robust presentation of the results.

6.Conclusion and Discussion:

We acknowledge the need for a thorough revision of the conclusion and discussion sections. In the revised manuscript, we will ensure these sections are rewritten to meet the necessary standards and effectively address the study's findings.

7.Quality of English Language and Proofreading:

We appreciate your comment on the quality of English language and proofreading. We will thoroughly proofread the manuscript to ensure it meets high linguistic standards.

We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which will undoubtedly contribute to the refinement of our research. If you have any further suggestions or specific areas you would like us to focus on during the revision, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Hong Duan

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2870060

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to read this work. In general, I found this study interesting. However, the authors need to emphasise the study’s novelty more clearly. In addition, I suggest proofreading the English by a native speaker. Below, I leave some comments and suggestions, hoping they contribute to improving the paper.

ABSTRACT

Please include a brief description of the sample in the abstract. In addition, English could be improved, and the abstract could be written more engagingly, emphasising the study’s relevance.

INTRODUCTION

The authors need to define the main constructs under study. I miss a definition concerning academic procrastination.

THEORETICAL BASIS AND CORE CONCEPTS

Since the authors never previously mentioned the self-determination theory, from the reader's perspective, it is unclear why the first topic in this section is about self-determination theory.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

« Foreign studies on the relationship between teacher support and academic self-efficacy were conducted earlier, such as the study of Ryan and Grolnick (1986), which reported a positive correlation between teacher autonomy support and academic self-efficacy [31].» Concerning this sentence, seem to me more adequate replace “foreign studies” by “previous studies”.

« Domestic scholars have also begun to pay attention to the effect of teacher support on academic self-efficacy in recent years.» Considering my previous comment, “domestic scholars” also seem inadequate considering the study's target audience. I suggest using, for instance, studies conducted in Asia or studies conducted in China.

Since the study has a cross-sectional design, terms such as “affects” and “influence” must be avoided in formulating the hypotheses.

RESEARCH DESIGN

It is essential to include a description concerning the procedure used in data collection and to stress how the ethical issues were addressed. In addition, concerning the scales used to measure each construct, I suggest adding sample items of each scale used.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

In general, the statistical analysis performed seems to be adequate.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

 

Globally, the authors discussed all the results obtained in line with the hypotheses formulated. Although the authors cited previous studies and confronted the results obtained with the literature, they could strengthen this section by citing more previous studies. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled " The Effect of Teacher Support on Sustainable Online Academic Self-Efficacy of College Students: The Mediating Effect of Academic Procrastination". Your insights are invaluable, and we are committed to addressing the points you raised to enhance the overall quality of our work. Here are our responses and planned revisions:

ABSTRACT:

1. Sample Description: We will include a concise description of the sample in the abstract to provide a clearer overview of the study participants.
2. Language Improvement: We acknowledge the need for language improvement and will work on making the abstract more engaging while emphasizing the study's relevance.

INTRODUCTION:

3. Definition of Main Constructs: We will explicitly define the main constructs under study, including providing a clear definition of academic procrastination.

THEORETICAL BASIS AND CORE CONCEPTS:

4. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the manuscript by removing the reference to the self-determination theory. We believe this adjustment will improve the flow and clarity of the text, addressing the concern raised about its introduction in the context of the reader's perspective.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES:

5. Use of Terminology: We will replace "foreign studies" with "previous studies" and reconsider the term "domestic scholars" to better suit the study's target audience.

6. Given the cross-sectional design of the study, it is advisable to refrain from using terms such as "affects" and "influence" when formulating hypotheses. Here's a revised version of the hypotheses:

"H1. There is a positive association between faculty support and the online academic self-efficacy of college students.

H1a. Emotional support is positively associated with the online academic self-efficacy of college students.

H1b. Cognitive support is positively associated with the online academic self-efficacy of college students.

H1c. Autonomy support is positively associated with the online academic self-efficacy of college students.

H2. There is a negative association between teacher support and online academic procrastination among college students.

H2a. Emotional support is negatively associated with online academic procrastination among college students.

H2b. Cognitive support is negatively associated with online academic procrastination among college students.

H2c. Autonomy support is negatively associated with online academic procrastination among college students.

H3. There is a negative association between academic procrastination and the online academic self-efficacy of college students.

H4. There is a positive association between teacher support and online academic self-efficacy of college students, mediated by academic procrastination.

H4a. Emotional support is positively associated with online academic self-efficacy of college students, mediated by academic procrastination.

H4b. Cognitive support is positively associated with online academic self-efficacy of college students, mediated by academic procrastination.

H4c. Autonomy support is positively associated with online academic self-efficacy of college students, mediated by academic procrastination."

These revisions aim to align with the recommendation to avoid terms that imply causation in a cross-sectional design.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

7. Procedure and Ethical Issues: Regarding the procedure used in data collection, we will ensure to include a comprehensive description in the revised manuscript, providing readers with a clear understanding of how the data were gathered. Additionally, we will emphasize how ethical issues were addressed throughout the research process to maintain transparency and integrity.

8. Scale Items: In response to your suggestion about the scales used to measure each construct, we will incorporate sample items for each scale in the methodology section. This addition will offer readers a more concrete insight into the measurement tools employed in our study.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

9. Statistical Analysis: We appreciate your positive feedback on the statistical analysis and will maintain the adequacy of the methods used.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:

10. Strengthening Citations: We will strengthen the conclusions and implications section by citing more relevant previous studies, providing a more robust discussion.

Quality of English Language:

11. Editing: We acknowledge the need for English language editing and will ensure a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript by a native speaker.

We are grateful for your detailed review and constructive suggestions, which will undoubtedly enhance the overall quality of our manuscript. If you have any further recommendations or specific areas that require additional attention, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Hong Duan

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2870060

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors followed recommendations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proof reading.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my previous comments and suggestions. As such, I have nothing more substantial to add.