Academic Self-Efficacy and Value Beliefs of International STEM and Non-STEM University Students in Germany from an Intersectional Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study helped to fill the research gap and provide valuable insights to the study-related expectations and value beliefs amongst international STEM an non-STEM students in Germany. Will be great to see more relevant studies to be conducted in the other countries and have the results compared so that we could have a deeper understanding of this important issue.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your feedback. We have now completed our revision. I am enclosing a revised version of our paper “Academic self-efficacy and value beliefs of international STEM and non-STEM students in Germany from an intersectional perspective“, Manuscript ID: education-2421462, in section: Curriculum and Instruction, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/sections/Curriculum_and_Instruction
Sticking with STEM: Who Comes, Who Stays, Who Goes, and Why?
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/STEM_4W.
In the section below, please find our response to your comments in italics. All changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Yours sincerely, the authors
"The study helped to fill the research gap and provide valuable insights to the study-related expectations and value beliefs amongst international STEM and non-STEM students in Germany. Will be great to see more relevant studies to be conducted in the other countries and have the results compared so that we could have a deeper understanding of this important issue."
Thank you very much for your appreciative and encouraging feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
The research seems to be up-to-date and interesting in terms of the subject. Although the research title is not too long, it is suitable for the purpose.
It was not good that this research was not in the form of an abstract of the abstract. In other words, it was good to write a summary in the summary, which includes the purpose, method, data collection tool, and summary of the results. However, the open form of the STEM abbreviation in the Abstract should be mentioned.
The entry of the research is suitable for literature. However, the introduction part of the research is not sufficient in terms of subject area. Two important issues were not mentioned here. First, what is STEM's definition? Who was the first studies on STEM?
Secondly, what is the difference between STEM and Non-Stem? Are there schools with STEM Integration?
When you say academic success, at what school level? Was there a problem with students at this school level, which was done? In other words, it is important why the demographic variables used here are selected. There must be more than filling the gap in the literature at the entrance.
The sources used are up to date. Therefore, the use of new bibliography in the entrance and discussion departments of the research enriched the research. The aim is written in accordance with the findings.
The research method is well written. Survey research method was used in the research. In the study, it would be better to write the research pattern and definition for quantitative studies. The SAMPLE title was used in the research. However, the research was not mentioned in the study and sampling methods. What kind of sampling method was used? How Stem and Non-Stem students are separated.
Table 2 needs to be corrected. Which Main Scale is it?
Tables 2 and 3 have been written why, but what do we understand from these tables? They have no explanations.
The tables used in the research were paid to be written in the form of APA6 standard.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your feedback. We have now completed our revision. I am enclosing a revised version of our paper “Academic self-efficacy and value beliefs of international STEM and non-STEM students in Germany from an intersectional perspective“, Manuscript ID: education-2421462, in section: Curriculum and Instruction, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/sections/Curriculum_and_Instruction
Sticking with STEM: Who Comes, Who Stays, Who Goes, and Why?
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/STEM_4W.
In the section below, please find our response to your comments in italics. All changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Yours sincerely, the authors
"The research seems to be up-to-date and interesting in terms of the subject. Although the research title is not too long, it is suitable for the purpose.
It was not good that this research was not in the form of an abstract of the abstract. In other words, it was good to write a summary in the summary, which includes the purpose, method, data collection tool, and summary of the results. However, the open form of the STEM abbreviation in the Abstract should be mentioned.
The entry of the research is suitable for literature. However, the introduction part of the research is not sufficient in terms of subject area. Two important issues were not mentioned here. First, what is STEM's definition? Who was the first studies on STEM?"
Thanks a lot for your remark. As this manuscript was submitted to be published in a special issue entitled “Sticking with STEM: Who Comes, Who Stays, Who Goes, and Why?” we assume that the readership will be familiar with the abbreviation STEM and/or it will be explained in the editorial. Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions, we abstained from including an explanation of this common term/abbreviation in our manuscript. If, however, the editors feel that it should be included, we will be happy to add it.
Eccles and colleagues were pioneers in the application of the EVT model to STEM research. Accordingly, we refer to their research in the introduction and in all other parts of the paper, e.g., Eccles et al. (1983) and Eccles and Wigfield (2020) (the latter summarizes about 40 years of their research on (STEM) motivation). Against this background, we did not see a need to add any further references.
As the abstract already includes information on the purpose, method and sample of the study, a summary of results and a short preview of the discussion. Therefore, we did not see a need to revise it.
"Secondly, what is the difference between STEM and Non-Stem? Are there schools with STEM Integration?
When you say academic success, at what school level? Was there a problem with students at this school level, which was done? In other words, it is important why the demographic variables used here are selected. There must be more than filling the gap in the literature at the entrance."
Thank you for your comment. As we outlined in the first sentences of the introduction, the focus of the present paper is on international students at German universities. As it is further explicated in the next sentences of the introduction, there is the problem of high drop-out rates amongst international students in Germany. This is one of the reasons why we consider it important to assess the (predictors of) academic success amongst international university students in Germany. To be even more clear about our focus sample, we additionally added the term “university” to the title which now reads: Academic self-efficacy and value beliefs of international STEM and non-STEM university students in Germany from an intersectional perspective”
The selection of the study variables is comprehensively explained in section 1.1. “Expectancy and value beliefs”, pp. 2-3 (in particular, the last two sections). The reasons for the use of the demographic variables are detailed in sections 1.2 and 1.3 (1.2. Differences in expectations and value beliefs by gender and parental academic background and 1.3. Expectations and value beliefs and cultural characteristics) and previous findings as well as open research questions are summarized in section 1.4. “Intersectionality”, pp. 5-6, as well as in the section “Purpose of the study” (p. 7). In our view, the current version of the manuscript entails all information to make our ideas and choices as transparent as possible. If, however, the reviewer still feels that something was missing, we would appreciate a more precise and elaborate feedback on this matter so that we can better understand on what to work on.
"The sources used are up to date. Therefore, the use of new bibliography in the entrance and discussion departments of the research enriched the research. The aim is written in accordance with the findings.
The research method is well written. Survey research method was used in the research. In the study, it would be better to write the research pattern and definition for quantitative studies. The SAMPLE title was used in the research. However, the research was not mentioned in the study and sampling methods. What kind of sampling method was used? How Stem and Non-Stem students are separated."
The sampling method is described in the method report of the project in which the data was collected. This source is included as a (blinded) reference as part of the sample description in the method section.
The distinction and categorization of STEM and non-STEM students is described in the section on research instruments (3.2. “Instruments and Scales”, pp. 9, “STEM versus non-STEM-subjects. The categorisation of the study subject groups into STEM and non-STEM subjects was based on the specification of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany for the winter semester 2017/2018 [32] and the statistics of the Federal Employment Agency [33].”)
"Table 2 needs to be corrected. Which Main Scale is it?
Tables 2 and 3 have been written why, but what do we understand from these tables? They have no explanations.
The tables used in the research were paid to be written in the form of APA6 standard."
Thank you for your question. As described in the title and in section 4.1. “Descriptive analyses”, p.10, in Table 2 we showed the means of all used main scales (study-related language skills, home culture orientation, host culture orientation, academic self-efficacy, attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value and cost value).
The explanations with regard to the table content are in the section 4.1. “Descriptive analyses”, p.10.
Unfortunately, the table formatting is part of the type editing process that is carried out by the publisher once the review process is completed. Therefore, we cannot do anything on this matter at the moment, but we thank you for the reminder to check on the formatting of Table 2 during the proof reading.
We also passed on some information on this and further formatting issues that came up during the revision to the publisher so that these will hopefully be considered during typesetting.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall this study is presented well with a comprehensive literature review and analysis of data. If it is lacking, it is in the implications section. While the study is conducted and explained well, its contribution to the literature and practical significance could be improved. For example, the authors state that the paper illuminates the need for better support for international students, but the nature of those supports are not detailed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your feedback. We have now completed our revision. I am enclosing a revised version of our paper “Academic self-efficacy and value beliefs of international STEM and non-STEM students in Germany from an intersectional perspective“, Manuscript ID: education-2421462, in section: Curriculum and Instruction, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/sections/Curriculum_and_Instruction
Sticking with STEM: Who Comes, Who Stays, Who Goes, and Why?
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/STEM_4W.
In the section below, please find our response to your comments in italics. All changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Yours sincerely, the authors
"Overall this study is presented well with a comprehensive literature review and analysis of data. If it is lacking, it is in the implications section. While the study is conducted and explained well, its contribution to the literature and practical significance could be improved. For example, the authors state that the paper illuminates the need for better support for international students, but the nature of those supports are not detailed."
Thank you very much for this appreciative and helpful comment. We tried to further strengthen our description of the findings’ implications. Unfortunately, in view of the page limitations, it does not seem feasible to include detailed descriptions of potential (cost) interventions. Also, unfortunately, there are not many studies that describe and evaluated cost interventions. We now explicitly describe this research need and added references (Rosenzweig et al., 2020; 2022) to two current studies that implemented and tested such cost interventions (see p. 19). Hence, interested readers may refer to the more detailed descriptions of the interventions in the original papers to get a clearer picture of how potential cost interventions could look like.
Please note that we also included references for other types of interventions that were described in the discussion (e.g., Authors 2022; Bandura,1997; Harackiewicz et al., 2016; Poort et al., 2022; Middendorff, 2011) and with regard to the language (Wisniewski et al., 2020; 2022) that provide detailed information on different support measures (pp. 18-19).
