The Relation of Students’ Conceptions of Feedback to Motivational Beliefs and Achievement Goals: Comparing Chinese International Students to New Zealand Domestic Students in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW FOR: Education Sciences-2663186-peer-review-v1

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review Education Sciences-2663186-peer-review-v1, entitled “Student Conceptions of Feedback: A Powerful Lever for Motivational Beliefs and Achievement Goals”. There are many strengths to this manuscript, and I believe with some notable revisions it can undoubtedly add to the growing literature in this area and would subsequently be appropriate for the readership of Education Sciences. The following are specific suggestions for changes and are presented chronologically by section.

 

Suggested Revisions:

 

·         Title:

o   If there is a cross-cultural or international comparison of students in this study, this should be reflected in a title revision.

 

·         Introduction:

o   On page 3, lines 98-104, It is important to point out differences between EVT/SEVT for readers not familiar with the evolution of the theory, especially as it relates to the focus of the current study and because the authors switch exclusively to SEVT later in the study.

o   On page 3, in the achievement goals section (1.2.3)

§  Please fully explain choices in use of AG theory, specifically why were mastery-avoid goals excluded from examination if the authors relied on the 2x2 framework?

o   Page 4, Figure 1: no suggested changes. Just kudos for the authors – this figure was very helpful in understanding the overall focus of the study!

o   Page 4, 1.3 Conceptual Framework

§  It is suggested (perhaps through inclusion of a table?) that the authors clearly distinguish or highlight what aspects of your conceptual model draw from other achievement motivation theories. This would be helpful for the reader. For example, it appears that aspects of SEVT are being tested, however, in this case, self-efficacy is being used as a proxy for outcome expectancies? Be clearer on substitutions or proxy relationships where appropriate.

o   It is suggested that since a cross-cultural examination through multi-group comparisons is being included in the study design that a section be integrated into the introduction to explore variations in motivation processes and academic performance that may be impacted by differences in cultural expectations. This is especially important as the authors include discussion around these issues in their Discussion section.

 

·         Materials and Methods:  

• Page 6, 2.3.3 Achievement Goals Questionnaire
• Please indicate that mastery-avoid goals construct was not included. As suggested earlier, the rationale or reasoning for this should be established in the introduction under the corresponding section.

 

• Discussion:
• Page 15, 4.2 The Chinese Learner
• If this is a focus of the study, i.e., exploring cross-cultural or in this case Chinese student specific motivation, self-regulation and learning, then this needs to be introduced and discussed in the introduction (see earlier comment).

 

• Supplementary Materials:
• I found these to be in good order.

 

In summary, I do think there is a worthwhile study here that sheds light on the topic. With some additional work, a revised version of this manuscript can add significantly to the literature and would be of interest to the readership of Education Sciences.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting study that proves the importance of feedback, especially that received from teachers, in the students' development process.

In my opinion, the study is well documented and well structured; the used instruments and methods are presented; the results are discussed in relation to other studies in the literature; and the limitations of the study are also highlighted.

I identified two editing errors in the manuscript text:

- on page 6, line 203, the 6th option should be strongly agree;

 

- on page 7, line 274, the reference “Put- 273 nick & Bornstein, 2016; Wu et al., 2007” must be given as a number between square parentheses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First and foremost, I would like to extend my gratitude to the authors for providing the opportunity to review this manuscript tittled: Students’ Conceptions of Feedback: A Powerful Lever for Motivational Beliefs and Achievement Goals. The effort and rigorous work put into this research are evident.

 

Introduction:

The introduction clearly establishes a gap in the extant literature, pointing to the lack of empirical evidence linking students' feedback conceptions with pivotal motivational factors. This clear delineation of the research's purpose and rationale gives the reader an immediate understanding of the study's relevance and necessity.

Methodology:

The sample size used in the study is substantial and well-detailed, comprising data from both New Zealand domestic students and Chinese international students. This diversity adds a rich dimensionality to the study and potentially lends generalizable validity to the findings.

The use of structural modeling analyses and measures based on cross-ethnic invariant models showcases a rigorous and sophisticated level of analysis. This is commendable and lends credibility to the results presented.

 

Results:

The findings are clearly articulated, and the connections between feedback conceptions and motivational beliefs and goals are described logically and coherently.

The finding that adaptive and maladaptive feedback conceptions have such distinct impacts on students' motivational beliefs and goals is particularly noteworthy.

 

Discussion:

The discussion offers a coherent and logical interpretation of the findings, effectively linking back to previous claims about the self-regulatory role of feedback conceptions. This bolsters the study's value and significance in the broader context of the existing literature.

Additional Comments:

 

It would be prudent to double-check the tables to ensure that there are no redundancies in information highlighting, such as simultaneous use of bold and asterisks.

Despite the comprehensive base of references backing the study, there is a notable absence of citations from the year 2023. Incorporating more recent literature would ensure the timeliness and relevance of the work in the contemporary context.

 

Conclusion:

 

This manuscript embodies meticulous and rigorous work addressing a pertinent gap in the literature. In my opinion, it is near-ready for publication. Kudos to the authoring team for this excellent contribution. With a few minor refinements, this research will undoubtedly be a valuable addition to the literature in this domain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf