Predicting Student Attrition in Higher Education through the Determinants of Learning Progress: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is one of the best papers I've reviewed in a while. Solid amongst every line. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An important caveat is that the reviewer has a completely different approach to the functions of the university. Without going into extensive discussion. The task of the university is not and should not be to educate staff in terms of the expectations of the labour market. Of course, it can be assumed that this is a significant discrepancy between the views of the reviewer and the authors can be valuable and important scientific discourse. However, the authors seem to assume that the university is an institution that is a model solution and functions the same in every corner of the world. About the instrumental and purely institutional treatment in the university article is the annoying abuse of the abbreviation HE. And that is probably why the authors approached so thoughtlessly to rely on the concepts of V. Tinto and J.P. Bean In my opinion, the authors did not provide any substantive justifications for referring to these concepts. It is very important because the concepts of V. Tinto and J.P. Bean, very valuable and inspiring, undoubtedly adequately described, above all, American universities. Meanwhile, the peer-reviewed article deals with universities in Saudi Arabia. The same question applies to the reference to HE Panel (44-47) which, as can be seen from the footnote, is a government document in Australia! I am aware of the different aspects of globalization in university education and science. However, I know from my own studies and research that there is considerable variation in this regard. Moreover, the authors of the article do not bring the reader closer to the essence and structure of education and the functioning of universities in Saudi Arabia. I do not even find an outline of an attempt to adapt the concept of V. Tinto and J. P. Bean to the specificity of education in Saudi Arabia. I also find it annoying not to even mention the initials of the names of the researchers on whose concepts the article is based. So let's say it's about Vincent Tinto and John P. Bean. For me, these are quite elementary principles of respect and academic culture. Finally, the authors of the article do not characterize the studied students in the slightest. We do not know what universities there are, what fields of study, etc. Absolutely nothing. Even if there is only one university in Saudi Arabia (?).In my opinion, the article is deprived of the important context of relating the considerations to the specific conditions of a given country (continent). In my opinion, the reviewed text is a draft of the study, which requires significant corrections and significant additions.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

See comments in attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I still see many threads as debatable and worth extending. In my opinion, the use of the quantitative paradigm in research impoverishes the analysis. The differences in views between the authors and the reviewer make me propose to submit the text to the readers' judgment.