Exploring How Culture Matters in Building Responsive and Humanizing Contexts for Community College Students Pursuing STEM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research contributes significantly to the scholarly discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM higher education. The study delves into the experiences of underrepresented and minoritized community college transfer students pursuing STEM degrees, offering a nuanced understanding of the cultural and racial dynamics they encounter. By exploring the impact of a culturally responsive approach, the research sheds light on the role of mentoring, institutional culture, and structural barriers in shaping students' success and persistence in STEM postsecondary environments. The findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive and culturally sensitive framework to support transfer students, providing valuable insights for educators, administrators, and policymakers aiming to enhance inclusivity and equitable opportunities in STEM education. The study's grounded approach, rooted in culturally responsive pedagogy, contributes to the broader academic conversation on fostering inclusive STEM ecosystems and offers practical implications for improving transfer processes and support structures for underrepresented students. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the paper be accepted for publication.

Some suggestions or clarifications: 

1 - What is a vertical transfer? Right at the beginning of the text (lines 25 and 26), as well as in the abstract and later on, the term is used assuming that any reader is familiar with it. I suggest a footnote to clarify what it refers to.

2 - Despite the paper having an intersectional approach, gender issues only come to the reader's attention at the end of page 9 (between lines 457-464) and fall a bit short of expectations, considering that more than half of the participants are women. I suggest, if possible, investing a bit more in this perspective.

3 - I suggest that it be clarified early in the introduction that mentors are professors, as this information only becomes clear later in the article.

4 - I did't have access to the table mentioned in lines 306-308.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very very well-written paper focused on a scientifically and practice-relevant topic. The literature review, methods and analysis sections are complete and convincingly developed. The section on implications is particularly good. I do not understand very well the conclusion section, is a little bit redundant. Perhaps I would simply put it at the end of the implications section as a summary, or eventually, the two sections could be merged and titled: “Conclusions and implications for research and practice”. The paper is almost ready for publication, however I would strongly advise the authors to provide more contextual information on their research problem and context. Community colleges and even the overall transition from secondary to post-secondary and higher education in the US is very specific and often different from other countries. Authors need to make sure that an international readership will be able to understand their article. For instance, wording such as “pell-eligible” and even the idea of transfers between 2-year to 4-year institutions are not clear to me, as a European-based reader. Moreover, the objectives and functioning of the STEMBridge programme could be better explained. Once the authors take this aspect into account, I believe the paper is ready for publication.    

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf