Computer Science Education for a Sustainable Future: Gendered Pathways and Contextual Barriers in Chile’s Computer Engineering Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very worthwhile research study - very clearly described and carefully undertaken.  Well explained.  Discussion and conclusions arise clearly from the results. My only suggestions are to improve or correct a few items of communication.   Very appropriate method for the research questions. Good literature to support the study.

 

In the Abstract and the Conclusions, I strongly recommending describing the goals as United Nations Sustainability Goals.   Add in the words United Nations to lines 2 and 455.  The Abstract needs to be able to stand alone from the rest of the paper.

 

While the quality of English overall is fine.  There are some errors that need correction:

a) Line 74 - I think this is meant to read:

........based on a systematic search of research conducted between 2013 and 2024,....

I doubt that the search took that length of time.

b) Line 132   would be better as:

A qualitative study, with a case study design is presented........

c) Line 144

....a convenience sample

d) Line 137

This study employs content analysis of interviews with participants who are.....

e) Line 163.  I suggest the following:

A total of 20 students from both academic levels completed the interview process. This number was determined based on the principle of data saturation, which involves continuing to interview  until no new themes are identified.  The number in our study is consistent with the findings of Hennik...............

f) Line 210

in-depth

g) Line 227 (need to add dashes in the age groups and I suggest adding years)

the ages of 18-20 years (70.5%), followed by those aged 20- 24 years (17,6%) and 24 years or older (11.9%).

 

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Is the research design appropriate?

Are the methods adequately described?

Are the results clearly presented?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Response and Revisions No.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: A very worthwhile research study - very clearly described and carefully undertaken. Well explained. Discussion and conclusions arise clearly from the results. My only suggestions are to improve or correct a few items of communication. Very appropriate method for the research questions. Good literature to support the study.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. 1

Comments 2: In the Abstract and the Conclusions, I strongly recommending describing the goals as United Nations Sustainability Goals. Add in the words United Nations to lines 2 and455. TheAbstractneedstobeabletostandalonefromtherestofthepaper.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestion. We will review it and add it.

Comments 3: While the quality of English overall is fine. There are some errors that need correction:
a) Line 74 - I think this is meant to read:
........based on a systematic search of research conducted between 2013 and 2024,....

I doubt that the search took that length of time.
b) Line 132 would be better as:
A qualitative study, with a case study design is presented........
c) Line 144
....a convenience sample
d) Line 137
This study employs content analysis of interviews with participants who are.....
e)Line163. Isuggestthefollowing:
A total of 20 students from both academic levels completed the interview process. This number was determined based on the principle of data saturation, which involves continuing to interview untilnonewthemesareidentified. Thenumberinourstudyisconsistentwiththe findings of Hennik...............
f) Line 210
in-depth
g) Line 227 (need to add dashes in the age groups and I suggest adding years)
the ages of 18-20 years (70.5%), followed by those aged 20- 24 years (17,6%) and 24 years or older (11.9%).

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestion. We will review it and add it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting study. I appreciate the authors’ efforts in conducting this study, which qualitatively examines the protective and risk factors for first-year students in computer science and health domains in Chile.

1. Overall, key concepts are not clearly defined, and the narrative seems to assume that readers already possess the same background knowledge as the authors, which makes the paper less accessible. For example, it is not clear what the authors mean by Sustainable Development Goals 4 (quality education) and 5 (gender equality).
2. Although many factors related to social positions influencing STEM persistence are reviewed in the literature, the overall narrative is very broad, making it difficult to identify the specific focus of this study. While a wide range of psychological factors are introduced, the manuscript lacks coherence in connecting these elements to support the central arguments. For instance, on page 2, self-confidence and self-efficacy are mentioned without any distinction between the two. Similarly, cultural expectations and beliefs about gender roles are referenced but not sufficiently defined. These kinds of ambiguities are found throughout the manuscript. This approach of listing related but conceptually distinct constructs without explanation leaves the paper feeling overly broad.
3. This lack of clarity is also reflected in the literature review. Sections 2.1 and 2.2, both on gender stereotypes, overlap considerably, and the rationale for presenting them separately is not clear. In addition, the concept of machismo is introduced without sufficient explanation of what it entails in Latine cultural contexts, which may limit understanding for readers unfamiliar with this background. The literature review would also benefit from incorporating more research on role models and machismo, as these are also part of the study’s findings. At present, the review primarily focuses on gender stereotypes.
4. Relatedly, the title is formulated quite broadly. I would strongly recommend revising it so that it more directly reflects the focus of this study.
5. Regarding the figures, it is not clear that Figure 1 should be included, as it only presents statistics from an external agency and does not reflect findings from this study. By contrast, Figure 2 could be more fully developed to clarify the study’s main findings. In its current form, the diagram summarizes factors (protective and risk) that are already well-established in the literature but does not illustrate how this study extends beyond prior work.
6. It is also notable that the manuscript does not make a strong connection between this study and the broader STEM or educational context in Chile. Given that the study seeks to address socio-cultural mechanisms of gender disparity, it is important to situate the findings more clearly in relation to the Chilean context and to discuss how they contribute to understanding gender disparities in that setting.
7. Finally, the analytic plan is presented in fairly broad terms. Providing more detail on the coding scheme, along with specific example responses illustrating how codes and categories were applied, would strengthen the transparency of the analysis and help readers better understand the reported results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of the English is good; however, the lack of conceptual clarity and coherence diminishes the readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed

1

responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections the re-submitted files.

highlighted/in track changes in

Response and Revisions
Were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

2. Questions for General Evaluation
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Is the research design appropriate?

Are the methods adequately described?

Are the results clearly presented?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Must be improved

Must be improved

Must be improved

Must be improved

Must be improved

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Overall, key concepts are not clearly defined, and the narrative seems to assume that readers already possess the same background knowledge as the authors, which makes the paper less accessible. For example, it is not clear what the authors mean by Sustainable Development Goals 4 (quality education) and 5 (gender equality).
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, these terms were revised and modified to be clearer, as can be seen in lines 2 and 458.

Comments 2: Although many factors related to social positions influencing STEM persistence are reviewed in the literature, the overall narrative is very broad, making it difficult to identify the specific focus of this study. While a wide range of psychological factors are introduced, the manuscript lacks coherence in connecting these elements to support the central arguments. For instance, on page 2, self-confidence and self-efficacy are mentioned without any distinction between the two. Similarly, cultural expectations and beliefs about gender roles are referenced but not sufficiently defined. These kinds of ambiguities are found throughout the manuscript. This approach of listing related but conceptually distinct constructs without explanation leaves the paper feeling overly broad.

Response 2: We have carefully considered your comments. Upon re-examining our manuscript, we realized that some of the terms we used were too broad, and we apologize for this oversight. Accordingly, we have removed or refined certain words that could be considered ambiguous or out of context. As a team, our intention was to emphasize the social and cultural differences, which are now more clearly specified in the revised document.

Comments 3: This lack of clarity is also reflected in the literature review. Sections 2.1 and 2.2, both on gender stereotypes, overlap considerably, and the rationale for presenting them separately is not clear. In addition, the concept of machismo is introduced without sufficient explanation of what it entails in Latine cultural contexts, which may limit understanding for readers unfamiliar with this background. The literature review would also benefit from incorporating more research on role models and machismo, as these are also part of the study’s findings. At present, the review primarily focuses on gender stereotypes.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We are currently revising Section 2 to clarify that Section 2.1 addresses the choice of STEM careers, while Section 2.2 focuses on university retention. This clarification has also been incorporated into the preceding section.

Comments 4: Relatedly, the title is formulated quite broadly. I would strongly recommend revising it so that it more directly reflects the focus of this study.
Response 4: Dear reviewer, we have taken your comment into account and propose the following: Computer science education for a sustainable future: exploring Gender-Related Facilitators and Barriers in the Choice of Computer Engineering.

2

Comments 5: Regarding the figures, it is not clear that Figure 1 should be included, as it only presents statistics from an external agency and does not reflect findings from this study. By contrast, Figure 2 could be more fully developed to clarify the study’s main findings. In its current form, the diagram summarizes factors (protective and risk) that are already well- established in the literature but does not illustrate how this study extends beyond prior work. Response 5: Dear Review, your comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Figure 1 has been removed, while Figure 2 has been revised accordingly. The diagram now reflects results derived from a local cultural context and illustrates an applicable approach for educational settings. Additionally, the inclusion of Figure 2 has been justified in the text. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback and look forward to any further comments you may have.

Comments 6: It is also notable that the manuscript does not make a strong connection between this study and the broader STEM or educational context in Chile. Given that the study seeks to address socio-cultural mechanisms of gender disparity, it is important to situate the findings more clearly in relation to the Chilean context and to discuss how they contribute to understanding gender disparities in that setting.

Response 6: Dear reviewer, this was added to the text, specifically connecting the focus of the article with the Chilean context.

Comments 7: Finally, the analytic plan is presented in fairly broad terms. Providing more detail on the coding scheme, along with specific example responses illustrating how codes and categories were applied, would strengthen the transparency of the analysis and help readers better understand the reported results.

Response 7: Dear reviewer, we really appreciate this comment, as the analysis plan was carried out following the parameters of a strict qualitative content analysis by a researcher with experience in this type of analysis. We therefore deeply appreciate your comment and look forward to receiving your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript engages with a relevant and timely research question, which is addressed adequately in the study. The originality of the work is meaningful within the Chilean context, yet its broader contribution is limited at a global scale. The abstract and main paper present a consistent line of argument, the references and tables are appropriate, and the conclusions are consistent with the findings. However, significant revisions are necessary. These include improving methodological clarity and structure (the methodology section requires stronger coherence, a clearer justification of the instrument used, and consideration of its psychometric validity), correcting numerous language inaccuracies and typographical errors, and ensuring that all sections are properly referenced (for example, the absence of citations between lines 100–110). Several stylistic and syntactic issues should also be addressed, such as sentences missing verbs and awkward phrasing in the opening of the methodology section. Additionally, repetitions between results and conclusions reduce the overall impact. Revising these elements, while refining the academic tone of the text, will substantially strengthen the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English in the manuscript requires significant improvement to meet academic standards. While the main ideas are generally understandable, the text contains multiple grammatical inaccuracies, awkward phrasing, and typographical errors that sometimes obscure meaning. In several sections, sentences lack clarity or syntactic cohesion (e.g., incomplete sentences, missing verbs, or confusing constructions). The tone also tends at times to be colloquial or absolute, which weakens its alignment with formal academic style. A thorough language revision by a proficient academic writer or a native speaker is strongly recommended in order to refine precision, ensure fluency, and enhance the overall readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed

1

responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections the re-submitted files.

highlighted/in track changes in

Response and Revisions

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

were reviewed and improved, as explained in the following section

2. Questions for General Evaluation
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Is the research design appropriate?

Are the methods adequately described?

Are the results clearly presented?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Yes

Must be improved

Must be improved

Must be improved

Yes
Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Your manuscript engages with a relevant and timely research question, which is addressed adequately in the study. The originality of the work is meaningful within the Chilean context, yet its broader contribution is limited at a global scale. The abstract and main paper present a consistent line of argument, the references and tables are appropriate, and the conclusions are consistent with the findings. However, significant revisions are necessary. These include improving methodological clarity and structure (the methodology section requires stronger coherence, a clearer justification of the instrument used, and consideration of its psychometric validity), correcting numerous language inaccuracies and typographical errors, and ensuring that all sections are properly referenced (for example, the absence of citations between lines 100–110). Several stylistic and syntactic issues should also be addressed, such as sentences missing verbs and awkward phrasing in the opening of the methodology section. Additionally, repetitions between results and conclusions reduce the overall impact. Revising these elements, while refining the academic tone of the text, will substantially strengthen the paper
Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we sincerely apologize for the grammatical and spelling errors in the previous version. These have been carefully reviewed and corrected. Your valuable comments regarding the improvement of methodological clarity and structure have also been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can see the improvements made in the revised manuscript. However, the paper still lacks a unique contribution to understanding STEM disparities within the Chilean context. The current findings largely mirror patterns that have already been documented in U.S.-based studies, without sufficiently situating them in Chile’s social and educational environment. The authors should more explicitly integrate contextual factors specific to Chile in Introduction and discuss how these shape the study’s rationale, interpretation, and implications. Additionally, the manuscript should improve the formatting and presentation details—including the title—to reflect the authors’ rigor and the scholarly quality of the work.

Author Response

We appreciate the review and have incorporated the requested revisions to strengthen the manuscript’s Chilean contextualization and scholarly presentation. Specifically, we have:

• Title: Updated to explicitly reference Chile, highlighting the national focus.

• Abstract: Added statements situating the findings within Chile’s socio-educational context.

• Introduction: Expanded with Chile-specific institutional, cultural, and territorial factors that justify the study’s rationale and distinct contribution.

• Discussion (before Section 6.1: Practical Implications): Inserted a closing paragraph linking the results to school stratification, admissions mechanisms, and regional labor structures in Chile.

• Conclusions: Reinforced the territorial and scientific contribution, emphasizing policy-relevant levers for the Chilean system.

In summary, the revision addresses the reviewer’s core concern by:

1. Contextualizing Chile as a differentiated case (Introduction).

2. Connecting the findings with education and labor market dynamics specific to Chile (Discussion).

3. Emphasizing the territorial and scientific contribution (Conclusions).

4. Making the national context visible from the Title and Abstract.

We remain at your disposal for any additional adjustments.