Learning/Earning: Characteristics of Student Work and Its Impact on Academic Careers at a Regional Hungarian University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explains how the academic achievement of working students is affected by different types of work (e.g., study-related work).

After reading the article, I got the idea that only working students were included in the dataset. If so, how can the authors conclude “that student work in itself does not have a major effect on academic achievement” (hypothesis H2)? This conclusion comes from the comparison of working and non-working students. If only working students are considered, it is only possible to investigate the effects of different types of work. Please clarify.

Hypothesis 1 should also be reformulated because it is related to changes in the students' profile, which requires longitudinal information not available in this study.

The article is well constructed; however, some aspects should be better explained, as in the case of:

a) The academic achievement index – please detail its construction (pg.5), as well as the creation of the binary variables.

b) Table 3 (and why student age was not included).

c) The model used to obtain the results on Table 4; please identify the theory that was used, the dependent variable (work vs not-working? But they are all working-students right?), the equation used, number of observations…

d) The model used to obtain results in Table 5 – please explain how the causal relation between the explanatory variables (for example, parents’ education and work type) is treated to avoid biased estimators. How can you guarantee that the study-related work effect on academic achievement is not partially due to other variables? How were the clusters considered in this analysis?

Minor issues: There is an introduction section and an introduction subsection. The subsection 1.2 is applied twice.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and made revisions accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points.

1. Clarification on Hypothesis H2: We appreciate your observation regarding Hypothesis H2. You are correct that our dataset included only working students, and thus, our original hypothesis may have led to confusion. We have revised Hypothesis H2 to focus on the comparison of different types of work (e.g., study-related vs. non-study-related work) and how these affect academic achievement, without implying comparisons between working and non-working students.
2. Reformulation of Hypothesis 1: Thank you for highlighting the need for longitudinal data to support Hypothesis 1. Our current study used data collected in a doctoral research project about the student work, which has longitudinal part, but we present the results of primary research in our current study. We have reformulated Hypothesis 1 to better reflect the cross-sectional nature of our data, focusing on the relationship between the types of work and academic achievement at a single point in time, rather than changes over time.
3. Clarification of the Academic Achievement Index:We have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed explanation of the construction of the academic achievement index and the creation of dummy and binary variables.
4. Explanation of Table 3: The table has been completed.
5. Clarification of the Model Used for Table 4: Specifically, we have explained the theory underpinning our model, identified the dependent and independent variables, and provided details on the equation used. We also clarified that the dataset only includes working students, and we focused on the variation between different types of work.
6. Model Used for Table 5: We have elaborated on how we addressed potential biases and considered clustering effects. Additional details on the model and methodology have been included to avoid confusion.
7. Minor Issues:We have corrected the introduction section and the subsection headings, ensuring that subsection 1.2 is not repeated.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We believe that these revisions have enhanced the clarity and impact of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conducted research is highly relevant because, given the demographic (also the fact that many sectors are facing a labor shortage) and socioeconomic challenges, many students will continue to combine studies with work in the future, creating persistent challenges for higher education institutions. It may be necessary to create more work-based programs, not only at the secondary level, but also in higher education (for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42795513_A_Review_of_Work_Based_Learning_in_Higher_Education and https://www.apgads.lu.lv/en/izdevumi/htqe-2021/65/).

The conducted research is very relevant because, taking into account the demographic and socio-economic challenges, many students will combine studies with work in the future as well.

In row 59, it should be clarified: from "on student outcomes" to "on student learning outcomes".

The beginnings of the sentences in rows 60 and 63 should be started differently (for stylistic purposes).

In the methodology, the statements partially correspond (especially moral awareness indicators should be discussed, viewed more widely). An aspect to be taken into account in the achievement indicators is the development of soft skills; it could also be analysed in a theoretical study.     Research that relies on self-assessment must also include its limitations. Further research should take into account that other methods should be used in addition to self-assessment.

 

The discussion and conclusion section should be revised. The discussion part should contain references to the authors of other studies, while the conclusions should come from the study itself and references should not be given.  It is recommended to formulate more specific recommendations for universities, teaching staff, employers, working students, thus making the study more attractive to an international audience.

It should be checked that the formatting of the reference list complies with the all journal's requirements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and made revisions accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points.

1. Clarification in Row 59: We have revised the sentence in row 59 to clarify the wording, changing “on student outcomes” to “on student learning outcomes” for better clarity.
2. Stylistic Changes in Rows 60 and 63: We have rephrased the sentences in rows 60 and 63 to avoid repetition and improve stylistic flow. We hope that these changes enhance the readability of the text.
3. Moral Awareness and Achievement Indicators:In the methodology section, we have expanded the discussion on moral awareness indicators and achievement indicators, including the potential development of soft skills.
4. Limitations of Self-Assessment:We agree with your suggestion regarding the limitations of self-assessment methods. We have now included a discussion of these limitations in the methodology section and suggested that future research should incorporate additional methods beyond self-assessment.
5. Revision of the Discussion and Conclusion Sections:We have revised the discussion section to include more references to relevant literature, ensuring a stronger connection with prior research. The conclusions section has been rewritten to ensure that the findings of the study are emphasized, with no references to external sources, as per your recommendation.
6. Specific Recommendations:In response to your suggestion, we have included more specific recommendations for universities, teaching staff, employers, and working students in the conclusion. These recommendations aim to make the study more actionable and relevant to an international audience.
7. Formatting of References: We have reviewed the reference list and ensured that it complies with the journal’s formatting requirements.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We believe that these revisions have enhanced the clarity and impact of our manuscript.