Towards Identifying the Soft Skills Needed in Curricula: Finnish and Italian Students’ Self-Evaluations Indicate Differences between Groups

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Greetings,

It was a pleasure reading your article.  I have the following suggestions for introducing the study and I believe the article would benefit from some checks in consistency as follows:

• Soft skills are introduced as "flexibility" and then later described as entrepreneurship, teamwork and leadership.  They are also described as linked to Personal traits, objectives and motivations.
  • Flexibility is later referred to as adaptability.  Consider using the term "cognitive flexibility" and again, define the ways you're using "soft skills" with different consistency.
  • The soft signs listed in the introduction are different from those evaluated in the study.
  • Be more precise in identifying soft signs and operationalize them earlier in the introduction.  Readily recognized soft signs in the literature also include communication, problem solving, etc. and most notably missing is ability emotional intelligence.  These soft signs are building blocks for teamwork, for example.  The introduction would be strengthened by at least connecting the soft signs used in the study methods to the introduction.
  • Generally, substitute another term for "prove*" found in lines 64 & 67. (supports, suggests, etc.)
• The introduction is quite long and would benefit from being more succinct.  Reorder the information taking care to reserve transitional terms such as "therefore" for stating the study's purpose.  Other transitional words might be useful such as "however" and "moreover" to guide the reader through the problem/justification of the study.
• Reconsider whether the study's methods are truly mixed methodology or predominantly qualitative in nature. Link the study outcomes/conclusions to specific soft skills.

Author Response

1. Response to Reviewer 1:

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for all comments and suggestions received from the Reviewer 1. This information has certainly enriched the text for its best understanding, thank you very much indeed. We have clarified the reviewer’s questions. We have introduced the required changes both in our answers to the specific comments and in the final manuscript V3.

It was a pleasure reading your article.  I have the following suggestions for introducing the study and I believe the article would benefit from some checks in consistency as follows:

• Soft skills are introduced as "flexibility" and then later described as entrepreneurship, teamwork and leadership.  They are also described as linked to Personal traits, objectives and motivations.

Flexibility is later referred to as adaptability.  Consider using the term "cognitive flexibility" and again, define the ways you're using "soft skills" with different consistency.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes by replacing “flexibility” in the Introduction part with “employability skills”, which is a generally used common term describing the named types of skills.

• The soft signs listed in the introduction are different from those evaluated in the study.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested change by using the skills evaluated in the study (teamwork, assertiveness, work under pressure).

Be more precise in identifying soft signs and operationalize them earlier in the introduction.  Readily recognized soft signs in the literature also include communication, problem solving, etc. and most notably missing is ability emotional intelligence.  These soft signs are building blocks for teamwork, for example.  The introduction would be strengthened by at least connecting the soft signs used in the study methods to the introduction.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes by using the skills evaluated in the study.

Generally, substitute another term for "prove*" found in lines 64 & 67. (supports, suggests, etc.) Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested change by replacing ‘proved’ by ‘suggested’.

The introduction is quite long and would benefit from being more succinct.  Reorder the information taking care to reserve transitional terms such as "therefore" for stating the study's purpose.  Other transitional words might be useful such as "however" and "moreover" to guide the reader through the problem/justification of the study.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. The Introduction part has been reorganized into a more logical and understandable sequence.

Reconsider whether the study's methods are truly mixed methodology or predominantly qualitative in nature. Link the study outcomes/conclusions to specific soft skills.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. The study outcomes regarding the five skills used in the research have been considered more in detail in the Discussion part.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an analysis of the importance of soft skills in two students’ samples from Italy and Finland. The topic is interesting; however, the manuscript can be significantly improved by following the comments below:

1. The description of the Laboratory in the Introduction section is too long and seems irrelevant compared to the methodology described in Materials and Methods and the Results. With the measures that have been presented in the manuscript, no implications can be drawn for the described Laboratory. What objective aspects have been assessed related to the Laboratory activity? How can the Laboratory results be connected to the BIP results? Based on the information in the text, no links can be made between the two study phases. The study presents the BIP profile before the Laboratory phase with no possibility to draw conclusions about the Laboratory’s usefulness in developing soft-skills. The description of the Laboratory and any implications related to it should be excluded from the text or additional data should be provided to support the conclusions related to the Laboratory’s usefulness in assessing and promoting social skills.  
2. The instruments that have been used are not clearly presented and referenced throughout the text. The authors mention they use 14 scales, grouped in 4 domains and an impression management scale, measuring 6 soft skills (lines 194-197), in 3 areas (lines 202-203), divided in 2 categories (lines 241-243) without naming all scales/domains. Each used scale should be named and referenced, and briefly described by including relevant psychometric properties and scoring procedure. The authors state that ‘The questionnaire included another important question: the participants were asked about their willingness to be active participants in the research, for future studies in relation to the subject participating in the training of these skills.’ (lines 226-227), but the importance of including this question is not argued and the results are not presented in the Results section.
3. The data analysis presentation does not include any statistical tests (critical difference and significance p values). Also, assuming that p values from Table 4 represent significance values, there are numerous contradictions between the description and the interpretation of the results in the main text and the data summarized in Table 4. For instance, from Table 4 results that Action orientation and Assertiveness are the only soft skills that significantly vary between Finnish and Italian students, but the main text mentions the other soft skills as differing between the 2 samples. The statistical analysis should be revised and the text results should correspond to the table contents.
4. Gender differences have not been analyzed. It is very possible that due to the gender imbalance within the 2 samples some overall differences might emerge, but in fact those differences could be attributed to gender effects. Gender analysis in each sample and overall should be performed.
5. Table 2 and Table 3 are redundant in the sense that they present the same data as Table 4. Modify the content of Tables 2 and 3 by presenting the BIP results for each sample in relation to the national validation scores for each scale or the initial scale development study, if national validation for the instruments is not available. Compare the scores of each sample to the scores reported in the validation studies to present any differences emerging in the existing study samples.
6. The Discussion section should be greatly modified to address only conclusions that can be drawn based on the presented results. The presented instruments and procedures do not allow the authors to conclude that ‘The conclusion of this study is that the support to higher education teachers in developing their curriculum design competences and in generating high quality teaching-learning and assessment activities for students is of the utmost importance. Furthermore, this study indicates that students are able to perceive their personal abilities in a reliable way, especially when the evaluation is connected to activities where the students are personally engaged.’ (lines 340-345). No data is provided to support the importance of the development of soft skills – since the Laboratory data is not presented – and no data is provided to support the claim that students can perceive their abilities in a reliable way since no objective assessments were presented. The existing data in the manuscript only allows to present an initial soft skills profile of both students’ samples, without direct conclusions about the reliability of those self-assessed soft skills, the importance of using them in team activities and how they should be trained.  
7. The conclusions regarding the cultural differences should also be toned down as no cultural differences’ instruments were administered and it can only be assumed that some cultural differences might come into play.                

Author Response

1. Response to Reviewer 2:

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for all comments and suggestions received from the Reviewer 2. This information has certainly enriched the text for its best understanding, thank you very much indeed. We have clarified the reviewer’s questions. We have introduced the required changes both in our answers to the specific comments and in the final manuscript V3.

The manuscript presents an analysis of the importance of soft skills in two students’ samples from Italy and Finland. The topic is interesting; however, the manuscript can be significantly improved by following the comments below:

1. The description of the Laboratory in the Introduction section is too long and seems irrelevant compared to the methodology described in Materials and Methods and the Results. With the measures that have been presented in the manuscript, no implications can be drawn for the described Laboratory. What objective aspects have been assessed related to the Laboratory activity? How can the Laboratory results be connected to the BIP results? Based on the information in the text, no links can be made between the two study phases. The study presents the BIP profile before the Laboratory phase with no possibility to draw conclusions about the Laboratory’s usefulness in developing soft-skills. The description of the Laboratory and any implications related to it should be excluded from the text or additional data should be provided to support the conclusions related to the Laboratory’s usefulness in assessing and promoting social skills.  

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. Indeed, the relation is unclear and we have erased the description and referrals to the Laboratory throughout the text.

1. The instruments that have been used are not clearly presented and referenced throughout the text. The authors mention they use 14 scales, grouped in 4 domains and an impression management scale, measuring 6 soft skills (lines 194-197), in 3 areas (lines 202-203), divided in 2 categories (lines 241-243) without naming all scales/domains. Each used scale should be named and referenced, and briefly described by including relevant psychometric properties and scoring procedure. The authors state that ‘The questionnaire included another important question: the participants were asked about their willingness to be active participants in the research, for future studies in relation to the subject participating in the training of these skills.’ (lines 226-227), but the importance of including this question is not argued and the results are not presented in the Results section.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. The description of the scale as well as the properties of the factors are presented more in detail. Furthermore, the part referring to the additional question has been erased, as it is obviously irrelevant in context to the resting results.

1. The data analysis presentation does not include any statistical tests (critical difference and significance p values). Also, assuming that p values from Table 4 represent significance values, there are numerous contradictions between the description and the interpretation of the results in the main text and the data summarized in Table 4. For instance, from Table 4 results that Action orientation and Assertiveness are the only soft skills that significantly vary between Finnish and Italian students, but the main text mentions the other soft skills as differing between the 2 samples. The statistical analysis should be revised and the text results should correspond to the table contents.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. The results have been reviewed and re-written in light of the results shown in the table. Quantitative data was tested for normality on sub-groups with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test according to the sample size of the group.

1. Gender differences have not been analyzed. It is very possible that due to the gender imbalance within the 2 samples some overall differences might emerge, but in fact those differences could be attributed to gender effects. Gender analysis in each sample and overall should be performed.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out, as this is an essential dimension. We have introduced the suggested changes by adding the results of the gender analysis in the Results part.

1. Table 2 and Table 3 are redundant in the sense that they present the same data as Table 4. Modify the content of Tables 2 and 3 by presenting the BIP results for each sample in relation to the national validation scores for each scale or the initial scale development study, if national validation for the instruments is not available. Compare the scores of each sample to the scores reported in the validation studies to present any differences emerging in the existing study samples.

Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. The mentioned ‘double’ tables have been erased, and the tables have been updated. Furthermore the gender table has need added.

1. The Discussion section should be greatly modified to address only conclusions that can be drawn based on the presented results. The presented instruments and procedures do not allow the authors to conclude that ‘The conclusion of this study is that the support to higher education teachers in developing their curriculum design competences and in generating high quality teaching-learning and assessment activities for students is of the utmost importance. Furthermore, this study indicates that students are able to perceive their personal abilities in a reliable way, especially when the evaluation is connected to activities where the students are personally engaged.’ (lines 340-345). No data is provided to support the importance of the development of soft skills – since the Laboratory data is not presented – and no data is provided to support the claim that students can perceive their abilities in a reliable way since no objective assessments were presented. The existing data in the manuscript only allows to present an initial soft skills profile of both students’ samples, without direct conclusions about the reliability of those self-assessed soft skills, the importance of using them in team activities and how they should be trained.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes in the Discussion part by referring primarily to the direct results of the study. In addition, conclusion on general level have been toned down in order to be more neutral by their nature.

1. The conclusions regarding the cultural differences should also be toned down as no cultural differences’ instruments were administered and it can only be assumed that some cultural differences might come into play.   

Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes by suggesting the results to be tentative. “The study tried to highlight the impact of cultural dimensions and students´self-evaluation of these skills as an element of obtaining skills and competencies needed in the future working life. “

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The "Introduction" chapter needs to be better organized and more focused, too vague and repetitive. Various subjects are presented without being articulated and deepened (e.g. Education, Vocational Education, Higher Education).

2. It is not clear, in the "Introduction" chapter, the relationship between vocational education and access to higher education. In fact, I suggest that differences in tracking between Italy and Finland should be clarified, and that both secondary school completion rates (from both countries) and inequalities in access to higher education to be considered;

3. The definitions for soft skills are repetitive and tend to be repeated throughout the chapter "Introduction". I suggest that at the beginning of this chapter, theoretical framework should be clarified and deepened;

4.The “Discussion” chapter deserves to be rethought as part of the “Introduction” chapter. It is necessary that the discussion of the results be made more concretely on the results obtained and not in the abstract form as they are presented. The “Conclusions” chapter does not seems to be properly related to the results. I suggest better articulation. The article needs to review the contents of its chapters in order to establish a better relationship between its parts, in particular between the Introduction, the Discussion and the Conclusions.

Author Response

1. Response to Reviewer 3:

First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for all comments and suggestions received from the Reviewer 3. This information has certainly enriched the text for its best understanding, thank you very much indeed. We have clarified the reviewer1’s questions. We have introduced the required changes both in our answers to the specific comments and in the final manuscript V3.

1. The "Introduction" chapter needs to be better organized and more focused, too vague and repetitive. Various subjects are presented without being articulated and deepened (e.g. Education, Vocational Education, Higher Education).
   Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. The Introduction has been reorganized into a better understandable sequence, whereby a part of the repetitive descriptions of soft skills have been erased.
2. It is not clear, in the "Introduction" chapter, the relationship between vocational education and access to higher education. In fact, I suggest that differences in tracking between Italy and Finland should be clarified, and that both secondary school completion rates (from both countries) and inequalities in access to higher education to be considered;
   Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out. We have introduced the suggested changes. Indeed, there was confusion in the description. The mentions of ‘vocational’ have been erased in points where it might be confusing.
3. The definitions for soft skills are repetitive and tend to be repeated throughout the chapter "Introduction". I suggest that at the beginning of this chapter, theoretical framework should be clarified and deepened;
   Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out .We have introduced the suggested changes by reorganizing and rewriting the Introduction (as mentioned in paragraph 1).

4.The “Discussion” chapter deserves to be rethought as part of the “Introduction” chapter. It is necessary that the discussion of the results be made more concretely on the results obtained and not in the abstract form as they are presented. The “Conclusions” chapter does not seems to be properly related to the results. I suggest better articulation. The article needs to review the contents of its chapters in order to establish a better relationship between its parts, in particular between the Introduction, the Discussion and the Conclusions.
Response: Thank you very much for pointing it out, this is a major point of the article to be revised. We have introduced the suggested changes by rewriting the Discussion part, whereby conclusions are made based on the results. Moreover, the tone of suggestions has been toned down to be more moderate.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved in reaction to the reviews. Please change the format of Table 2, since is not properly displayed and the summarization of the data cannot be analyzed compared to the main text.  

In addition, statistical tests are still missing (t or F values). Please add the statistical tests in Table 1 and 2.

Author Response

He have change the format of Table 2, and added t values. We have added this text:

Regarding soft skills according to nationality, we found that there are significant differences in sensitivity, assertiveness, and social desirability. Italians score higher than Finns on all variables (Table 2).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I recognize the effort in reorganizing and deepening the Introduction chapter, which guarantees a better structural sustainability of the article. I also recognize the additions to the Results chapter.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for all comments and suggestions received from you. This information has certainly enriched the text for its best understanding, thank you very much indeed.