The Effects of an Entrepreneurial Project on the Career-Choice Readiness, Metacognition, and Growth Mindset of Secondary Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I congratulate the authors for their efforts. Below are some comments that I think will be useful to authors.

- The definition and theoretical framework of "entrepreneurial projects" should be created. I didn't see this in the introduction.

- Authors should explain how they selected participants. In the current version of the text, it is unclear how the participants were selected.

- Authors should provide more detail about the context of research.

- More concrete information should be given regarding the four-day implementation process. Process descriptions should be detailed with some concrete examples.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have taken your feedback seriously and have made the following clarifications and additions to address the points you raised:

1. The definition and theoretical framework of "entrepreneurial projects" should be created. I didn't see this in the introduction: We appreciate your observation regarding the absence of a clear definition and theoretical framework for "entrepreneurial projects" in the introduction. To address this, we have elaborated on the context-dependent nature of "entrepreneurial projects." In our study, we define entrepreneurial projects as project-oriented initiatives aimed at students in entrepreneurship education, where they work on the foundation and development of a business idea in diverse contexts. This clarification aims to set the stage for our research's theoretical underpinnings and to ensure that readers understand the specific angle of our study within the broader field of entrepreneurship education.
2. Authors should explain how they selected participants. In the current version of the text, it is unclear how the participants were selected: Regarding your concern about the clarity of our participant selection process, we have now specified that participants were selected based on their registration for a four-day entrepreneurial intervention during the relevant period. The project cooperates with individual partner schools, so-called district schools in Hamburg. We have also described this type of school in more detail. This criterion for participant selection was chosen to ensure the involvement of students genuinely interested in entrepreneurial activities, thereby enhancing the relevance and applicability of our findings to entrepreneurship education.
3. Authors should provide more detail about the context of research: To provide more detail about the research context, we have included additional information about the organization that regularly conducts interventions at participating schools. Our study had the unique opportunity to accompany the project scientifically after consultation with the selected schools. Data was collected over several weeks in April and May 2022 in northern German district schools. This clarification should offer readers a better understanding of the setting in which our study was situated.
4. More concrete information should be given regarding the four-day implementation process. Process descriptions should be detailed with some concrete examples: You rightly noted the need for more concrete information regarding the four-day implementation process. We have now enriched our manuscript with a detailed description of the program's objectives, the role of certified coaches, and the didactic approach employed to stimulate entrepreneurial initiatives among students. We also included concrete examples of activities and learning outcomes for each day in Table 2, providing readers with a vivid depiction of the intervention's operational dynamics and educational impact.
5. You also noted that the conclusion must be improved: We expanded our discussion section by integrating new relevant literature based on your suggestion to enrich the reference list and the conclusion section. This step was taken to broaden the scope of our review, incorporating recent studies and theoretical advancements in entrepreneurship education.
6. Based on a request from another reviewer, we have also had the paper checked again for grammar, punctuation, and spelling (e.g., career-choice readiness, startup).

These revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript by addressing your concerns and providing clarity and depth. We are grateful for your guidance in enhancing the quality of our work and hope that our responses align with your expectations.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper intends to tackle some big topics (career choice readiness, metacognition, and growth mindset) and yet the method doesn't seem to match the scale and subsequently raises questions as to whether this study needed to be longitudinal or have a greater data set to improve the validity and reliability of the findings in reaching a conclusion that produces impact in the field.  Indeed the author notes that the brief timespan of the intervention has potentially played a part in there being no statistical significance in the differences in growth mindset and career choice readiness. 

The methodology seems logical (pre and post) and yet students are not tracked which would have added benefit to the findings.  Quantitative analysis is not my strength so I don't feel it is appropriate for me to comment on the use of quantitative analysis techniques and the results. 

In short, I feel the paper is a fair write-up of the study that was conducted (hence the boxes I have ticked above) but that the study itself isn't significant enough to be written about on its own without further data collection or development.

The English language is good.  Phrasing and grammar is at times disjointed and questionable but this could be easily improved.  There is for example extensive use of commas which needs reducing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and constructive criticism regarding our manuscript. Your comments have provided valuable insights, and we have made concerted efforts to address each point you raised. Below, we outline how we have addressed your concerns:

1. This paper intends to tackle some big topics (career choice readiness, metacognition, and growth mindset). Yet, the method doesn't seem to match the scale and subsequently raises questions as to whether this study needed to be longitudinal or have a greater data set to improve the validity and reliability of the findings in reaching a conclusion that produces impact in the field.  Indeed the author notes that the brief timespan of the intervention has potentially played a part in there being no statistical significance in the differences in growth mindset and career choice readiness: We acknowledge your observation about the scope of our study, focusing on career choice readiness, metacognition, and growth mindset, and the potential mismatch between our methodology and the scale needed to achieve impactful conclusions. Our study's setting in secondary education, as opposed to higher education, where most related research is conducted, presents unique challenges, particularly regarding access to the field and the feasibility of longitudinal studies. We also faced challenges by stringent data protection and anonymity requirements in German schools. Despite these constraints, our cross-sectional analysis provides valuable preliminary insights into the impact of entrepreneurship education in secondary schools. Research is notably scarce in this domain due to the high barriers to conducting studies in this context. Our engagement with the organizers and schools aimed to shed light on this underexplored area, contributing to the groundwork for future research that might overcome these hurdles.
2. The methodology seems logical (pre and post) and yet students are not tracked which would have added benefit to the findings. Quantitative analysis is not my strength so I don't feel it is appropriate for me to comment on the use of quantitative analysis techniques and the results. In short, I feel the paper is a fair write-up of the study that was conducted (hence the boxes I have ticked above) but that the study itself isn't significant enough to be written about on its own without further data collection or development: We understand your concern regarding our study's lack of student tracking, which would have enriched the findings. The absence of such tracking resulted from the need to maintain anonymity, preventing us from assigning codes to individual participants. While this limitation restricts our ability to conduct longitudinal analysis or follow students' progress over time, we maintain that our study's findings offer intriguing insights and serve as a valuable addition to the field, particularly in highlighting the potential of entrepreneurship education at the secondary level. We hope that future evaluations of this program will occur under less difficult circumstances and that longitudinal studies will also be possible.
3. The English language is good. Phrasing and grammar are, at times, disjointed and questionable, but this could be easily improved. There is, for example, extensive use of commas, which needs reducing: We take your comments on the quality of the English language in our manuscript seriously. Following your suggestions, we have used a professional proofreading service to refine our manuscript further. This service has helped us address issues related to phrasing, grammar, and commas, ensuring that our final submission meets the high standards of academic writing and is more accessible to readers.

Despite the noted limitations, we are committed to contributing meaningfully to the discourse on entrepreneurship education, especially within the context of secondary education. We hope our revised manuscript meets your approval and that the changes made reflect a thoughtful consideration of your valuable feedback. Thank you for the opportunity to improve our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper  is well-structured and clearly defined. It effectively introduces the topic and sets the context for the study. The research problem is well articulated, providing a clear rationale for the study.

The methodology employed in the paper is well-documented and explained in detail. The research design is appropriate for addressing the research questions, and the data collection methods are clearly outlined.

While the methodology section is robust, the discussion could be improved. The authors only provide a summarized overview of the findings without delving deeply into their implications or potential limitations.
A more thorough discussion is needed to contextualize the findings within the existing literature and to explore their significance for theory and practice.

The paper would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of the implications for both theory and practice. The authors should consider how their findings contribute to existing theoretical frameworks and what practical implications they have for relevant stakeholders. By providing actionable insights, the paper could have a more significant impact on both academia and industry.

The generalizability of the findings should be addressed more explicitly. The authors need to discuss the external validity of their results and consider any factors that may limit the generalizability of their findings to other contexts or populations. This discussion would enhance the overall credibility and relevance of the study.

Conclusion: In conclusion, while the paper is well-structured and the methodology is clear, there is room for improvement in the discussion section. A more detailed discussion of the findings, implications for theory and practice, and the generalizability of results would strengthen the paper and enhance its overall contribution to the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in guiding our revisions to strengthen the paper, particularly enhancing our discussion's depth. Here's how we addressed your comments:

1. While the methodology section is robust, the discussion could be improved. The authors only provide a summarized overview of the findings without delving deeply into their implications or potential limitations. A more thorough discussion is needed to contextualize the existing literature's findings and explore their significance for theory and practice. The paper would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of the implications for both theory and practice. The authors should consider how their findings contribute to existing theoretical frameworks and their practical implications for relevant stakeholders. By providing actionable insights, the paper could have a more significant impact on both academia and industry: In response to your advice, we have significantly expanded the discussion section to delve deeper into our findings' theoretical implications and practical applications. Furthermore, we elaborated on the practical implications, offering actionable recommendations for educators, policymakers, and other stakeholders involved in entrepreneurship education. This enriched discussion aims to underscore our study's relevance to academia and industry, highlighting potential pathways for future research and implementation.
2. The generalizability of the findings should be addressed more explicitly. The authors need to discuss the external validity of their results and consider any factors that may limit the generalizability of their findings to other contexts or populations. This discussion would enhance the overall credibility and relevance of the study: We appreciate your concern regarding the generalizability of our findings. In our revised manuscript, we have more explicitly addressed the limitations affecting the external validity of our results, including the small sample size and the study's focus on district schools. While acknowledging these limitations, we emphasize the exploratory nature of our research within the under-researched area of entrepreneurship education in lower and upper secondary education. Our discussion now includes a critical examination of how these factors may influence the applicability of our findings to other contexts or populations, thereby enhancing the overall credibility of our study.
3. Conclusion: While the paper is well-structured and the methodology is clear, there is room for improvement in the discussion section. A more detailed discussion of the findings, implications for theory and practice, and the generalizability of results would strengthen the paper and enhance its overall contribution to the field: Following your suggestions, we have revisited the conclusion section, making substantive enhancements to reflect the expanded discussion and better articulate the study's contributions to the field. We have made a concerted effort to highlight the novel aspects of our research, especially considering the scarcity of scientific evaluations of similar programs in secondary education. By situating our study within the broader academic and practical discourse, we aim to underscore its significance and the potential it holds for informing future initiatives in entrepreneurship education.
4. Based on a request from another reviewer, we have also had the paper checked again for grammar, punctuation, and spelling (e.g., career-choice readiness, startup).

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly strengthen the manuscript's contribution to the field. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your insightful feedback and hope that our responses meet your expectations for a more comprehensive and impactful paper.

Thank you once again for your valuable input.