How Gender and Primary Language Influence the Acquisition of Economic Knowledge of Secondary School Students in the United States and Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting in relation to the acquisition of economic knowledge in schools. However, the authors do not adequately justify two types of choices: 1) the two countries they compare, the United States and Germany, and 2) the two variables analysed, gender and primary language.
1) Why Germany and the United States? In lines 27-28 the authors indicate that these are "two leading Western industrial nations in recent years", but there are also other similar countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, etc., which are analyzed in other bibliographical references indicated in the article itself. The authors also indicate that in both countries the introduction of economic education in schools has intensified, but the question arises as to whether the same has not happened in other countries. This is the point that the authors should expand on: in which countries and to what extent has economic education been expanded? In fact, at the end of the article (lines 450-461) the authors indicate that there are differences between the curricular standards between the states of the US and Germany. This issue should be explored further.
2) The two variables analyzed are very important to explain the differences in the acquisition of economic knowledge, but there are other variables that can also explain it (for example, the social, economic and cultural level of the students, if they have repeated a course, their race, their date of birth, etc.). Why only analyze these two variables? Authors must indicate in the text if they do so because they are the two most important variables, or because of lack of data (because they only have data on those variables). In fact, at the end of the article (lines 431-441) they indicate that the models leave a lot unexplained after integrating this two determinants. On the other hand, the primary language is a proxy variable for the migration background of the students, and this is recognized by the authors themselves. Therefore, it would be interesting to know why they do not use the migration variable instead of the primary language, if it is because they do not have that data or for another reason. Table 2 shows the percentages of primary language in the US and Germany. Do these percentages coincide with the percentage of immigrant students in both countries? This data would be used to see if the "primary language" variable is a good proxy for the migration background.
Finally, the explanation with examples on how the adaptation of the TEL4 from English to German has been carried out (figure 1, lines 209 to 212) is not interesting in this article, it does not add anything to the substance of the article.
I consider that the previous changes are minor changes ("minor revision") since the article is well-structured and the conclusions are interesting and consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript being reviewed is current and relevant, with high-quality content and a well-supported theoretical framework. The paper is well-written and has a sound strategy for its contents. The theory of support for the framework it proposes is solidly based on research, and its material is extensive. The contents are discussed and articulated.
The comprehensive and adequate literature review provides a solid foundation for the research. The title effectively captures readers' attention by including important information, the abstract effectively summarizes critical findings, the study's purpose and methodology are clearly outlined, and the methods used in the research are appropriate and well-described. The data collection strategy is explained clearly and understandably, and the analysis of the results is also done coherently.
The article's structure is clearly outlined, with the proper numbering of sections, subsections, figures and tables. The paper is written with good grammar and correct spelling throughout. The list of references is well-organized, the number of references is appropriate for the level of depth of the topic in the article, and the references used are relevant and robust for the research conducted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the chapter 3.2 Samples for the US test and the German test: „We analysed data from the following two assessments: In Germany, version A of the German adaptation of the TEL4 (Authors, 2017) was administered to 983 students; in the US, versions A and B of the TEL4 were administered to 3,517 students (Authors, 2013). “
The sample size for the US and Germany is not acceptable considering the population of both countries.
In the chapter Conclusion, it is written that the sample of 983 students refers to only one German federal state: „Second, there are limitations in terms of the samples. In Germany, only students from one federal state were assessed in this study“ which is not acceptable, given the number of federal states.
The time when the research was conducted is not specified in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I don't have any more comments.
