Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual-Carbon” Targets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript presents an analysis of the implementation and awareness of the dual carbon policy in the context of educational institutions. This policy, which aims for China to reach its peak CO₂ emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, is of significant relevance in the global context of sustainability and climate change.

The study concentrates on the ways in which the education sector and student awareness of this policy can be integrated into the classroom, investigating both student receptivity and the efficacy of current teaching strategies. While the article makes a valuable contribution to the field of educational implementation, there are sections that could be improved with greater clarity and depth. The following recommendations are offered for the improvement of the manuscript's quality:

1.       While the study is said to focus on the dual carbon policy, a more detailed explanation of what this policy entails is required, particularly in the context of China's 2030 and 2060 CO2 emissions targets. This should include an explanation of the policy's importance and how it aligns with international commitments.

2.       The article should provide a more detailed account of how the research contributes to the existing literature on environmental education and climate policy. It would be beneficial to provide a rationale for integrating this policy into the secondary or primary education curriculum. It would be beneficial to place a greater focus on SDG target 4.7 and the key competences for sustainability derived from it. It would be beneficial for the work to be further enriched by including recent studies that analyse the teaching of environmental policies in educational contexts, specifically with classroom interventions. For example, the following studies could be referenced: https://doi.org/10.6018/red.537571 and others by the author, where the importance of target 4.7 and partnerships between institutions to achieve sustainable development should be highlighted.

3.       The methodology employed to assess the efficacy of instruction on the dual carbon policy in the classroom lacks sufficient detail. Furthermore, the research design, data collection instruments, and analytical techniques utilized should be more explicitly delineated.

4.       The presentation of results is clear; however, it would be enhanced by a more detailed discussion comparing these findings with those of previous research in education, as previously noted. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to include a discussion of the practical implications of the results for teachers.

5.       The article would benefit from a more concise summary of its key findings and a more detailed discussion of their practical implications, as well as potential areas for future research. For example, the article could propose specific recommendations for teachers on how to improve awareness of the dual carbon policy in the classroom.

6.       Should the opportunity arise, an analysis of the applicability of the educational strategies in different contexts or regions within China would provide a broader view of the effectiveness of the policy in different circumstances. Furthermore, validating the results obtained through comparative studies or experiments would significantly strengthen the conclusions of the article.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision and improvement of our paper. We have revised the content of the article carefully according to your comments and advices. The details of the revisions have been highlighted in red in the text, and the main changes are as follows.

 

Point1：Can you explain the dual-carbon policy in more detail?

Response：On September 22, 2020, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced at the General Debate of the 75th Session of the United Nations General Assembly that "China will increase its nationally determined contributions, adopt more robust policies and measures, strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030, and strive to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060." The proposal of China's carbon peak and carbon neutrality goals (hereinafter referred to as the "dual carbon" goals) has attracted attention at home and abroad.

What is carbon peaking and carbon neutrality? In layman's terms, carbon peaking refers to carbon dioxide emissions reaching a maximum in a certain year, and then entering a declining stage; Carbon neutrality refers to the fact that the carbon dioxide produced by specific organizations or entire social activities is absorbed and offset by natural and man-made means such as afforestation, ocean absorption, and engineering storage for a period of time, so as to achieve relatively "zero emissions" of carbon dioxide from human activities.

Point2：Can you provide a more detailed explanation about how the research contributes to existing literature, environmental education and climate policy?

Response：Existing literature: The literature lacks attention to the special group of dual-carbon talents. The existing literature lacks a theoretical basis for the study of sustainable development capacity, and the I-E-O model theory is used in this study.

Environmental education: The impact on sustainable development capacity is discussed from the perspectives of environmental factors and personal factors, so as to provide a direction for the cultivation of sustainable development ability of dual-carbon talents.

Climate policy: Dual-carbon talents have rich professional knowledge and practical experience, and can provide professional advice and support for the formulation of climate policies based on scientific data and analysis, so as to ensure the rationality of policies. By cultivating the sustainable development ability of dual-carbon talents, we can improve their professionalism and implementation ability in the process of climate policy implementation, and ensure that the policy is effectively implemented. Dual-carbon talents play an important role in low-carbon technology innovation. They have cutting-edge scientific and technological knowledge and innovative thinking, and can promote the research and development and application of low-carbon technologies, and provide technical support for the implementation of climate policies.

Point3：Can you refine the details of the methods used to assess the effectiveness of the two-carbon policy in the classroom, and more clearly describe the research design, data collection tools, and analytical techniques used?

Response：Teachers carry out teaching in combination with the dual carbon policy, and evaluate students' awareness of environmental protection. The study was distributed online nationwide to university students majoring in low-carbon-related fields. SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24.0 software were used to analyze and collate the data.

Point4：Can you discuss the findings in more detail with the findings of previous educational research, and describe the actual impact of the findings on teachers?

Response：The conclusions of this study are consistent with the results of previous studies. First, the course experience has a significant positive and direct impact on sustainable development. Second, learning engagement does not play a mediating role in curriculum experience and sustainable development. Thirdly, self-efficacy plays a mediating role in curriculum experience and sustainable development. Fourth, self-efficacy and learning engagement play a mediating role in the chain between curriculum experience and sustainable development.

The actual impact on teachers, including the impact on teachers' curriculum design, teaching practice, and attention to students' self-efficacy and learning engagement, has been revised in the paper.

Point5：Can you discuss the practical significance of this paper in more detail?

Response：It provides a reference for higher engineering education to evaluate the sustainable development ability of "dual carbon" professionals. At present, empirical research based on sustainable development capacity generally lacks theoretical basis and evaluation tools, and there is little empirical analysis for the "dual carbon" professional group. Based on the concept of sustainable development education, this study constructs an evaluation model for the sustainable development ability of "dual carbon" professionals, which provides reference for engineering education.

Provide countermeasures and suggestions for improving the sustainable development ability of "dual carbon" professionals, and help achieve the "double carbon" goal as scheduled. Based on the I-E-O model theory, this study deeply analyzes the impact of environmental factors and personal factors on students' sustainable development ability, and the research results provide an empirical basis for promoting the sustainable development ability of "dual carbon" professionals, and provide a direction for colleges and universities to clarify the training goals and improve the training path. At the same time, it is conducive to guiding students to pay more attention to their own sustainable development ability. In addition, talent development is closely related to social progress, and cultivating "double carbon" talents with sustainable development capabilities will help promote the sustainable development of society, provide talent guarantee for China to achieve the "dual carbon" goal, and help achieve the goal as scheduled.

Point6：If you have the opportunity, can you analyze the applicability of educational strategies in different situations or regions in China, and strengthen the conclusions of the article by comparing the results obtained from studies or experiments?

Response：In this study, the sample was collected from all over the country, and the collection was not divided into regions, and there will be differences in the education level in central and western China, and we will pay attention to the follow-up research. At the time of sample collection, we will divide the area and conduct a comparative study.

 

Best regards,

Shuyu Qi, Penglong Jiang, Mi Zhou

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review the manuscript "Enhancing Sustainable Development Competence in Undergraduates: Key Determinants in the Context of “Dual Carbon” Targets".

 

Please consider the following points when revising your paper. I wish you all the best.

-        Abstract: You should explain the "dual carbon goal".

-        Please add suitable references from the literature for your first statements in the introduction.

-        I like the way you refer to your specific project in the last section of the introduction. However, I recommend that you only mention the number of participants later in the methodology (description of the sample).

-        The description of the model in 2.1 is good and an important basis for understanding the work. Perhaps it is possible for you to design a small illustration that shows this model. This would certainly give readers a good overview.

-        Please elaborate on the concept of "sustainable education" (2.2).

-        You have derived the hypotheses very well from previous findings of other research. However, I think you have skipped a step. In my view, the formulation of the research questions is missing. This should be done before the hypotheses are stated.

-        3.1: Add further information about the sample (e.g. average age and its standard deviation, gender distribution, progress in studies, etc.).

-        Check the quality of Figure 1. There seems to be some blurring here.

-        The first section of 3.2.1 is less methodological and more theoretical.

-        In some cases, the methodology is missing derivations from the literature for the statistical methods used.

-        !!! Unfortunately, the presentation of the results is not just a presentation of the results. Rather, interpretations are repeatedly made. This is a major flaw in the work and shows that central principles of scientific work have not been implemented.

-        !!! There is no discussion of the results. In this, your findings must be discussed in the context of other scientific studies. The discussion is a central achievement of a scientific paper. I can see that you have drawn many conclusions, but unfortunately this has been done without reference to the literature. I therefore see a serious deficiency in your work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision and improvement of our paper. We have revised the content of the article carefully according to your comments and advices. The details of the revisions have been highlighted in red in the text, and the main changes are as follows.

Point1：Can you explain the dual carbon goal in the abstract?

Response：The dual carbon goal have been explained in the abstract.

Point2：Can you add appropriate references to the first statement in the introduction?

Response：Appropriate references have been added to the first statement.

Point3：In the introduction, can you only mention the number of participants at the end of the method?

Response：It has been modified to mention only the number of participants.

Point4：Can you design an illustration to help the reader better understand the model in 2.1?

Response：Illustrations have been made in the text.

Point5：Can you refine your research question?

Response：The research question has been further refined.

Point6：Can you add further information about the sample?

Response：Information about the gender, place of origin, grade level and major of the sample has been added.

Point7：Can you provide a clearer Fig.1?

Response：Fig.1 has been adjusted to provide a clearer picture

Point8：Can you refine the methodology part in 3.2.1?

Response：The questionnaire was distributed nationwide online from October to November 2023 for university students majoring in low-carbon-related fields (e.g. energy and transport, construction). The survey focused on undergraduate students in engineering disciplines that align with the "dual carbon" strategy, spanning 361 universities. Using random sampling, 666 questionnaires were collected. After excluding invalid responses (responses with the same answer or less than 60 seconds to complete), 613 valid questionnaires were retained, with a response rate of 92.0%. In this study, SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24.0 software were used to analyze and sort out the original data, and the evaluation model of "dual carbon" professionals in Chinese universities based on sustainable development ability was determined, which provided an empirical basis for the research. The validity, relevance and significance of the questionnaire were tested, and the descriptive method was used for statistical analysis based on the evaluation data obtained from the empirical evaluation, and the interaction between variables was further analyzed on the basis of literature analysis and theoretical research.

Point9：Can you refine the derivation of the statistical methods used from the literature?

Response：In reading the literature on competency studies, it was found that most of the researchers used quantitative research methods, using SPSS and AMOS software. In this study, we used SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24.0 software to analyze and sort out the original data, tested the reliability and validity, relevance and significance of the questionnaires, and used descriptive methods to conduct statistical analysis based on the evaluation data obtained from the empirical evaluation. The influencing factor model is used to conduct an empirical analysis of "dual carbon" professionals based on sustainable development ability.

Point10：Can you explain the results of the study in detail?

Response：First, this study found that the curriculum experience has a significant positive impact on the ability to develop sustainable development. To a certain extent, this reflects the importance of curriculum content and teaching methods to sustainable development capabilities. The curriculum and content pay attention to the cultivation of sustainable development skills, and the teaching philosophy and methods have undergone changes. The course content emphasizes the combination of theory and practice, pays attention to the comprehensive use of knowledge, adheres to the concept of innovation, and provides a curriculum foundation for cultivating students' sustainable development capabilities. The school's teaching philosophy has turned to “student-centered”, using a variety of teaching methods, such as case teaching, task teaching, group cooperation, etc., to make seemingly uninteresting knowledge lively and interesting, students actively participate, and exercise students' qualities in many ways.

Second, this study found that self-efficacy has an intermediary effect. First, the course experience positively affects self-efficacy. In the teaching process, teachers should properly control the difficulty of course content, improve students' enjoyment of learning, and enhance their confidence in learning. Teaching methods are closely related to learning results, and learning results are an important factor affecting self-efficacy. Secondly, the sense of self-efficacy positively affects the ability to develop sustainable development. Students with a high sense of self-efficacy are willing to try new strategies and skills to continuously enrich themselves. In the face of difficulties, students with a high sense of self-efficacy can face and overcome bravely, and ultimately gain something. It should be pointed out that the impact of learning input on sustainable development capabilities is not significant, so the hypothesis that learning input plays an intermediary role in curriculum experience and sustainable development capabilities is not true. There may be several reasons for this: first, students are attached to learning. Students only passively accept the learning content, become dependent on teachers, and lack independent thinking. Did not find a suitable learning method for yourself, did not establish your own learning framework. This form of passive learning, even if a lot of time is invested, the learning results are often greatly reduced. Second, only fight for time, regardless of efficiency. It is not that the longer the study time, the better the learning effect. Even if students who make inefficient use of time invest a lot of time, they will gain very little in learning results.

 

Third, in addition to playing a mediating role between curriculum experience and sustainable development, curriculum experience can also affect self-efficacy and thus have an impact on sustainable development through learning engagement. In other words, learning engagement and self-efficacy play a chain mediating role in curriculum experience and sustainability. First of all, the course experience has a positive impact on students' learning engagement. The focus of the curriculum and the way of teaching provide direction and pathway for students to engage in learning. Secondly, learning engagement has a positive impact on self-efficacy. In the process of engaging in learning, students gradually deepen their awareness and interest in learning content, thereby improving their self-confidence and pride in learning. In addition, self-efficacy has a positive impact on students' sustainable development ability. Students with a higher level of self-efficacy have higher requirements for the level of abilities they have acquired in the learning process, have higher motivation for learning, and are often able to actively devote themselves to learning, face up to difficulties in learning, and make unremitting efforts to achieve success and improve their abilities.

Point10：Can you refine the discussion section of the survey results and refine the references?

Response：It has been revised in the discussion section and the relevant references have been cited

 

Best regards,

Shuyu Qi, Penglong Jiang, Mi Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is generally well done but as documented in the editorial notes above, there are a number of items that need revising, editing or clarification.

Author Response

Point1：How many students attend the relevant programs at the 361 universities and, therefore, comprised the study population?

Response：A total of 666 questionnaires were collected.

Point2：How many universities were represented in the analytic sample (that is, had one or more students respond from that institution)?

Response：We did not have statistics on the number of schools, but based on the IP addresses of students who filled out the questionnaire, we found that the central region has a relatively high proportion of students, up to 50%. Maybe because we are in Beijing, we are more familiar with the universities in the north. Inferred from IP addresses, the northern part has the highest coverage, and the southwest part has very little.

Point3： How many students were presented with an opportunity to complete the survey across all 362 universities?

Response：This research target is mainly for college students in low-carbon related fields (such as energy and power, electrical, transportation, and construction), and belongs to the engineering category. On average, engineering students make up 30% of the university's total population, and it is estimated that 80% of students will see the link if it is forwarded within the class group.

Point4： How was the questionnaire administered (online or another mode)?

Response：Questionnaires are sent online.

Point5： How many invitations were made to prospective respondents?

Response：The link to the questionnaire is posted by teachers of each university in the class group or circle of friends, and the number of invitees is related to the number of students in each school. The number of invitees is not recorded.

Point6：If survey invitations were sent to a larger group of students at one or more institutions, how many nonrespondents were there? And, what is known about how nonrespondents differ from respondents?

Response：Students are not very motivated to fill out the questionnaire, and if the questionnaire giver does not pay close attention, fewer students will take the initiative to fill it out. It is a critical period for autumn recruitment, and it is also a critical time to prepare for various exams such as civil servants, career editors, and graduate students, and some students are not in the mood or time to fill in the questionnaire. Students who did not fill out the questionnaire may have been motivated or did not have the time. Students who did not fill out the questionnaire may be less supportive of the teacher's work?

Point7：Can you correct the first sentence of the abstract, which contains grammatical errors or missing words?

Response：The first sentence of the abstract has been revised.

Point8：Can you add references to Astin?

Response：Astin's related works have been cited.

Point9：Can you phrase your assumptions in more precise terms?

Response：In H1, H2, H3 and H4, it has been modified to include students' sustainability skills.

Point10：Can you adjust the concept of ecological civilization, which is not the focus of this article?

Response：If there is a concept of other capabilities, the concept of ecology cannot be deleted. Pay attention to students' attitudes towards the ecological environment.

Point11：Can you provide an appendix?

Response：OK.The appendix is at the very bottom of the document.

Point12：Can you remove the overall influencing factors in Table 4?

Response：The overall influencing factors in Table 4 have been deleted.

Point13：Can you adjust Table 6 and Table 7?

Response：The “T” under Table 6 has been deleted and Table 7 has been adjusted.

Point14：Can you explain why you calculated the square root of the AVE values in Tables 8 and 9?

Response：Discriminative validity is a discriminative measure that characterizes the various dimensions. If there is a significant correlation between the latent variables in the structural equation model, and the AVE value of each latent variable under the root number is greater than the correlation coefficient between each latent variable and other latent variables, the questionnaire is considered to have good discriminative validity. Table 8 and Table 9 show that the square root values of AVE are higher than the correlation coefficients with other variables. The questionnaire has good discriminative validity.

Point15：Can you delete a comment between authors on lines 337-339?

Response：The comment has been deleted.

Point16：Can you adjust the font of Figure 2?

Response：The font in Figure 2 has been adjusted.

Point17：Can you have another model that compares the reference values of the model chi-square?

Response：Chi-square is an important indicator of how well the model fits the data. However, it is not sufficient to rely solely on the chi-square value itself to evaluate the model, and in order to compare the goodness-of-fit of different models more comprehensively, χ2/df can be considered in addition to the model chi-square (in general, when this ratio is less than 2 or 3, the model can be considered to fit relatively well.) RMSEA, CFI (between 0 and 1, the closer to 1 means the better the model fits), NFI, IFI, TLI, see Figure 10.

TLI: TLI is similar to CFI in that it is also used to evaluate the fit of the model, and its value range is also between 0 and 1, the closer to 1 is the better the fit.

The lower the RMSEA value, the better the model fits, and between 0.05 and 0.08 means that the model fits well, but a certain degree of error is acceptable.

These fitting indices can be taken into account in combination.

Point18：Can you introduce the terms "normalization factor" and "non-normalized coefficients" and clarify the label of CR?

Response：Normalization coefficient: The path coefficient after the variable has been normalized in the model. Normalization is usually done by converting the raw data of a variable into a variable with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, and then calculating the path coefficients between these variables. Usually in the range of [-1, 1]. Non-normalized coefficients: Path coefficients that are not normalized in the model. Critical Ratio (CR): It is the ratio of the parameter estimate to its standard deviation. CR is used to assess the statistical significance of model parameters.

Point19：Can you use the same terminology for the concept of learning engagement?

Response: The terminology of the concept of learning engagement has been uniformly adjusted.

Point20: Table 12 appears to omit the Learning engagement => Self-efficacy path while including    some items from Table 11?

Response：Learning engagement and self-efficacy were both mediating variables, and the relationship between the two was not discussed separately, but the mediating role was emphasized.

Point21: Table 13 appears to omit the Course experience => Learning engagement =>        Sustainability path.?

Response：Learning input did not have a significant impact on sustainability, with a p-value of 0.502. The number of questions in the learning engagement questionnaire is small and the sample is limited, so this path was not analyzed.

Point22: Why is self-efficacy justified as an endogenous variable rather than an exogenous variable?

Response：1. Self-efficacy is often defined as an individual's belief or confidence in their ability to accomplish a particular task. This belief is intrinsic and stems from an individual's perception of his or her own abilities, rather than external factors.

2. Many psychological theories, such as Bandura's theory of social cognition, explicitly consider self-efficacy as an internal variable.
3. In causality, self-efficacy is often seen as antecedents that influence subsequent behaviors and outcomes. For example, individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to try new tasks and persevere in the face of challenges, leading to better academic performance or other achievements.
4. Self-efficacy is indeed a long-formed state of mind of an individual, which does not mean that self-efficacy is only related to past experiences and not to the current environment.
5. Although self-efficacy has some stability, it develops dynamically. The school curriculum and teaching methods are external factors that directly affect students' learning experience and sense of achievement. For example, if the curriculum is designed to spark students' interest, then students may develop self-efficacy in the process.

 

 

Appendix

 

 

Appendix A: Questionnaire on the Sustainable Development Ability of "Dual Carbon" Professionals Dear Questionnaire Fillers:

 

Hello! Thank you very much for participating in this survey. The purpose of this study was to understand the development status and influencing factors of the sustainable development ability of engineering undergraduates. There is no right or wrong choice in all the questions in this questionnaire, please fill in according to your real feelings and thoughts, we will conduct the survey in an anonymous way, the survey data is only for research purposes, and the survey data will be kept confidential, please rest assured. Thank you for your support and assistance!

 

Part I: Basic Information

1.Your gender is ( ).

1. Male B. Female
2. Your place of origin is ( ).
3. Urban B. Rural
4. Your grade level is ( ).
5. 1st year of college B. 2nd year of college C. 3rd year of college D. 4th year of college E. Other
6. The professional category you are in is ( ).
7. Energy and power B. Electrical C. Transportation D. Construction E. Others

 

Part II: Assessment of capacity for sustainable development

Please be able to keep up with yourself attainment of development capacity conduct an appraisal and be in corresponding scores Hit "√". "1" means very non-compliant, "3" means average, and "5" means very much compliant. Please do not omit or select more than one box.

 

Serial number	Item content	Score
Ecological value thinking ability
1	I have an obligation to protect the environment	1	2	3	4	5
2	I should take more responsibility for the sustainability of the environment	1	2	3	4	5
3	Humans should adapt to nature, not change it	1	2	3	4	5
4	Pollution control is an important part of ensuring environmental sustainability	1	2	3	4	5
Team interpersonal skills
1	I can communicate effectively with team members on engineering issues and communicate well with others	1	2	3	4	5
2	In the course of my project work, I was able to establish a good connection with others, understand and respect them human needs, perspectives, and behaviors are treated equally.	1	2	3	4	5
3	In the process of project work, I am good at listening to other people's opinions and understanding their feelings	1	2	3	4	5
4	In the process of working on projects, I am able to work boldly with others, and I am patient and unbiased to accept opinions that are different from my own	1	2	3	4	5
5	In the process of project work, I patiently and unbiased tolerate the other party's opinions that are different from my own, and I can understand the process of the other party in the event of conflicts	1	2	3	4	5
Engineering foresight and innovation ability
1	When I encounter difficulties, new ideas often arise	1	2	3	4	5
2	I seek out new methods, techniques, or tools	1	2	3	4	5
3	I will come up with original solutions to the problem	1	2	3	4	5
4	I put innovative ideas into practice	1	2	3	4	5
5	I can identify current and future risks and opportunities	1	2	3	4	5
6	I am able to consider both short-term and long-term impacts when analyzing and evaluating course of action	1	2	3	4	5

 

Part III: Factors influencing sustainable development

Please evaluate the influencing factors of sustainable development according to your true feelings, and put "√" on the corresponding score. "1" means very non-compliant, "3" means average, and "5" means very much compliant. Please do not omit or select more than one box.

 

Serial number	Item content	Score
Self-efficacy
1	If I try my best, I can use that knowledge to solve problems	1	2	3	4	5
2	I can confidently and effectively deal with things that come up in my project, task, or study	1	2	3	4	5
3	When I get into trouble with a project or study, I can usually think of ways to deal with it	1	2	3	4	5
Learning engagement
1	When I was studying, I felt energized and threw myself into the ocean of knowledge	1	2	3	4	5
2	Even when my studies were blocked, I continued to devote myself to it	1	2	3	4	5
Course experience
1	The course content emphasizes innovation	1	2	3	4	5
2	The course content emphasizes how to apply theoretical knowledge to solve practical problems	1	2	3	4	5
3	The course content can reflect the development and application of emerging engineering technologies in a timely manner	1	2	3	4	5
4	The course focuses on applying knowledge from other fields to solve engineering problems	1	2	3	4	5
5	In experimental/practical training classes, the teacher uses examples or cases to explain concepts	1	2	3	4	5
6	In the experiment/practical training class, the teacher adopts the teaching method of group cooperation	1	2	3	4	5

The questionnaire ends here, thank you for your cooperation!

 

Best regards,

Shuyu Qi, Penglong Jiang, Mi Zhou

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My reading of the revised manuscript suggests that the authors have made a number of changes that improve the paper. However, further changes are needed in two areas. First, the text needs to clarify the conceptualization of self-efficacy and its role in the conceptual model and in the research model. Although the authors comments on this issue in their response to my previous review address this, the text of the manuscript continues to co-mingle language about self-efficacy as an input concept/factor (e.g. lines 266, 552-555, 617-620) with language about it being a mediating concept/factor (e.g., lines 215, 617). Given the measurement of self-efficacy occurs concurrently with the other concepts, the initial status of students’ self-efficacy confounds the effect of change in self-efficacy (which is what I understand the authors are writing about for their research model in Figure 3). I think it is reasonable to question whether self-efficacy is more driven by student’s initial status and, hence, should be exogenous in the research model than reflecting what is likely to be a small incremental change in self-efficacy from the effects of course experience (which is currently modeled as a mediated effect). This view is supported by the idea that college engineering students are high achievers and would already demonstrate high self-efficacy at entry into the university. The authors also note the homogeneity of their sample (see lines 329-332 regarding the outcome variable). This is why I think the authors might have mis-specified their research model and an alternative model should be tested.

At the very least, the authors need to articulate a better argument for the role of self-efficacy in their current model and acknowledge the dual nature of self-efficacy’s role as both input (i.e., an initial status at the start of the program) and mediating effect (i.e., change in self-efficacy). Further, the text needs to be carefully edited to address these confound effects, where in some locations the authors make statements reflecting an initial status effect and in other locations, they make statements about change effects (i.e., improved self-efficacy).

The second area that needs further improvement is the description of the data collection methods. The authors’ response about the data collection and sampling procedures to this reviewer was incomplete and the changes to the paper were inadequate. First, line 230 states that “random sampling” was used. Random sampling has a specific meaning in survey methods and from the information provided this is clearly not the procedure used in this study. Appropriate wording would be “convenience sample”.  Furthermore, the authors’ description of the survey distribution (via course instructors at various institutions) suggests that coverage of the research population was incomplete. Finally, the distribution of respondents by year (with 4^th years students being under-represented) demonstrates nonresponse error is likely. These sources of error (non-random, convenience sampling; incomplete coverage of the engineering student population; nonresponse) must be more clearly discussed in the limitations section of the paper.  The authors may want to consult with a survey methodologist or a text (see Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons). At the end of the day, it is unclear how well the 613 respondents represent the population of interest (i.e., engineering students in China) and, consequently, the elegant statistical model may over- or under-estimate the relationships in the research model. Thus, it is important to more clearly acknowledge these limitations in the paper.

Other editorial comments:

1.      Text in the paragraph (lines 234-257) should not re-state data in Table 1 (e.g. lines 236-237). Please remove duplication.  

2.      Lines, 489-494, the hypotheses were not revised here.

3.      Table 13, the path for Learning engagement -> Self-efficacy was excluded. This path is shown the Figures 2 and 3, and the coefficient and associated statistics should be included here. The authors’ comment in their response does not justify excluding the information in my view.

4.      Line 517, “sustainable development” should be “students’ sustainable development ability” in keeping with the measures used in the study.

Lines 516-555, In my view, this text should be integrated into the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the revision and improvement of our paper. We have revised the content of the article carefully according to your comments and advices. The details of the revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the text, and the main changes are as follows.

 

Point1：What is the conceptualization of self-efficacy and its role in conceptual and research models?

Response：

Asterin's I-E-O model emphasizes the relationship between individual student characteristics (input variables), institutional support (environmental variables), and student output (output variables). In this model, the input variables mainly refer to the initial characteristics of the students, including the students' personal traits, personality characteristics, learning emotions, etc. Self-efficacy, as an individual's confidence in their ability to accomplish a task or achieve a goal, can be considered as part of a person's trait and can be included in the category of input variables. Although self-efficacy may change due to multiple factors such as personal experience and social environment, it is less likely to change drastically in a short period of time, and can be regarded as a relatively stable input factor. There is indeed a statement about improving self-efficacy in the article, because the hypothesis has been tested, and self-efficacy has been found to help improve ability, and how to improve self-efficacy is discussed from the perspective of ability improvement.

 

Point2：Further improve the description of the data methodology while clarifying the limitations of this study.

Response: First, random sampling has been modified to convenience sampling. Second, the limitations of this paper have been supplemented.

 

Point3：Text in the paragraph (lines 234-257) should not re-state data in Table 1 (e.g. lines 236-237). Please remove duplication.  

Response: The duplicate data in the text that is in Table 1 has been deleted.

 

Point4：Lines, 489-494, the hypotheses were not revised here.

Response: This section previously only changed the blurry image to a clear one, assuming that the relevant part did not change

 

Point5： Table 13, the path for Learning engagement -> Self-efficacy was excluded. This path is shown the Figures 2 and 3, and the coefficient and associated statistics should be included here. The authors’ comment in their response does not justify excluding the information in my view.

Response: The path for Learning engagement -> Self-efficacy has been included in Table13.

 

Point6: Line 517, “sustainable development” should be “students’ sustainable development ability” in keeping with the measures used in the study.

Response: It has been revised to the students’ sustainable development ability here.

 

Point7：Lines 516-555, In my view, this text should be integrated into the Conclusion section.

Response: The section has been removed and integrated into the conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

Best regards,

Shuyu Qi, Penglong Jiang, Mi Zhou

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the authors have addressed nearly all of my comments in a satisfactory manner, I am disappointed that they did not dig into the issue of model specification. I am disappointed that the authors did not present evidence of testing self-efficacy as an input variable (i.e., exogenous with regard to course experience and learning engagement) in the model. As mentioned in my previous reviews, the measurement of self-efficacy is confounded, such that it encompasses initial status and some amount of change (if any, which the authors acknowledge in their response). Due diligence would involve testing alternative model specifications and I don’t see where this was done.

I noted that the wording for the limitations section was clarified and much improved.

I have a minor comment regarding the text in line 532; while self-efficacy is a significant mediating variable in the research model, I think describing the effect as “crucial” overstates its role. “Important” or “significant” would be a more even-handed descriptor. The direct effects of course experience are much larger and mediating effects relatively weaker.

Author Response

Comment 1: The format of literature citations and the precision of English descriptions must be meticulously revised.

Response 1：We have carefully revised the citation format to comply with the journal's guidelines and have refined the language for clarity and precision throughout the manuscript. The citations have been consistently formatted, and the English descriptions have been thoroughly edited to ensure academic accuracy.

 

Comment 2: The results of descriptive statistics should be consolidated into a single table. Indeed, many tables in this manuscript can be merged. Please refine the manuscript to a level of precision that meets the journal's requirements.

Response 2: The descriptive statistical tables have been consolidated into a single comprehensive table, and other related tables have been merged where appropriate. This restructuring enhances clarity and ensures that the manuscript now meets the journal’s precision requirements. The original 14 tables have been revised to 6 tables, which are marked in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 3: This article employs Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze the proposed research model. However, the current version's SEM analysis is somewhat disorganized. Please directly present the results of the measurement model and structural model of your research model. Additionally, revise the Goodness of Fit (GOF) indices for the overall model.

Response 3: The SEM analysis has been reorganized for clarity. We now present the measurement model and structural model results distinctly, with a clear separation of the two in Table 5. Furthermore, the Goodness of Fit (GOF) indices have been updated and revised for accuracy, ensuring they align with standard criteria for model fit evaluation.

 

Comment 4: In the Introduction section, some content lacks original literature sources for the data cited. Please address this omission.

Response 4: The missing citations in the Introduction section have been added. We have supplemented the relevant data with original literature sources to ensure comprehensive coverage of referenced information, thereby improving the scholarly rigor of the introduction.

 

Comment 5: Figure 3 should be supplemented with significance levels. The coefficients on the paths should be labeled with standardized path coefficients.

Response 5: Figure 3 has been revised to include significance levels. Additionally, the path coefficients have been labeled with standardized path coefficients, as recommended, to provide a clearer representation of the relationships within the model.

 

Comment 6: The quality of some references is suboptimal. It is recommended that the author thoroughly examine the quality of each cited reference and ensure the citation of appropriate literature sources.

Response 6: All references have been thoroughly reviewed, and suboptimal references have been replaced with higher-quality, peer-reviewed sources. This ensures that the cited literature is credible and relevant to the research, enhancing the overall academic quality of the manuscript.