Instructor Clarity and Student Interest: The Mediating Role of Students’ Academic Satisfaction and State Motivation in Spanish Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

(Part 1, Research background and knowledge gaps): This manuscript addresses several of gaps in the instructional communication literature. It moves beyond the direct relationship between instructor clarity and student outcomes that has been thoroughly documented in the literature. This paper begins to investigate potential mediator variables that mediate the relationship between instructor credibility and student interest. By incorporating academic satisfaction and state motivation as mediators the study offers a process-oriented perspective of the instructional communication process that has not yet been fully explored in current research. Using RRGT as an integrated model, this manuscript investigates a set of relationships that have never been examined collectively before. In addition, this study was carried out in the context of Spanish higher education, which enriches the international scope of the instructional communication literature.

(Part 2, Methodology): The use of a quantitative, cross-sectional survey method and analysis method PLS-SEM for exploring the complex relationships between latent variables are appropriate. The hypotheses, measurement instrument and analysis are all clearly explained in the paper. The assessment of the measurement model and structural model are done in accordance with the principles of SEM.

(Part 3, The weaknesses): However, I suggest the following:

1. The generalizability of this study is limited due to the single institution, single discipline (education) setting and the fact that the sample was predominantly female.

2. Convenience sampling approach, which may introduce selection bias and limit representativeness.

3. Omitted variable bias - e.g. prior ability, content of course, teaching style.

4. It is not very clear why PLS-SEM was chosen for this study. 

5. Low to moderate explanatory power (R² values) suggesting that other important variables may be missing.

6. The authors indicate that there is a conceptual overlap between a number of constructs (satisfaction, motivation) that may suggest that discriminant validity is lacking, regardless of whether the recommended threshold values are reached.

7. Why did the first author self-cite himself in 9 previous publications? 

Best regards,

A reviewer 

Author Response

Comments 1: The generalizability of this study is limited due to the single institution, single discipline (education) setting and the fact that the sample was predominantly female.

Response 1: We understand that the generalizability of the findings might be limited by the use of a single-institution sample, its focus on the field of Education, and the predominance of female participants.

However, although sample representativeness is a relevant element in terms of statistical generalization, within the PLS-SEM framework, generalizability is primarily assessed through the predictive performance of the model rather than exclusively through sample size or diversity (Sabol et al., 2023). In this regard, the present study implemented PLSpredict, which constitutes a key indicator of the model’s external validity and generalizability (Hair et al., 2019). The evaluation of out-of-sample predictive performance through PLSpredict is, by definition, evidence that the model’s results are not “overfitted” to the specific sample data and can be generalized to similar contexts or populations (Shmueli et al., 2019). Therefore, the results obtained in the present study through PLSpredict indicate that the research model has predictive power and, according to Danks and Ray (2018), confirm its generalizability. As noted by Riggs et al. (2024), this generalization capability makes models evaluated with PLSpredict strategic tools for future planning in real-world contexts. In sum, the use of PLSpredict confirms that the relationships identified in this study are not exclusive to the analyzed sample, but rather demonstrate sufficient robustness to be valid in similar contexts (Shmueli et al., 2016).

Nevertheless, this aspect was already acknowledged and clarified in the Limitations section of the manuscript. Moreover, in the Future Research section of the manuscript, it was already emphasized the need to replicate the model in more diverse disciplinary settings, across multiple institutions, and with more balanced samples in terms of gender.

Comments 2: Convenience sampling approach, which may introduce selection bias and limit representativeness.

Response 2: We acknowledge that the use of a convenience sampling approach may introduce selection bias and limit the representativeness of the sample.

This issue has now been explicitly addressed in the Limitations section of the manuscript. We have also strengthened the discussion of future research directions, emphasizing the need to employ probabilistic sampling methods and more diverse samples to enhance representativeness and external validity.

Nevertheless, the sample is consistent with the target population of interest and allows for the examination of the proposed relationships within a real educational setting. Moreover, the use of PLS-SEM is appropriate for predictive and exploratory purposes, even when non-probabilistic samples are employed (Becker et al., 2023). 

Comments 3: Omitted variable bias - e.g. prior ability, content of course, teaching style.

Response 3: The model tested in this study was intentionally designed to focus on key constructs derived from the Rhetorical/Relational Goals Theory, with the aim of examining the specific mechanisms linking instructor clarity, academic satisfaction, state motivation, and students’ interest. While this parsimonious approach allows for a clearer interpretation of the relationships among the focal variables, we recognize that other contextual and individual factors may also play an important role.

To address this issue, we have now explicitly acknowledged it in the Limitations section of the manuscript. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion of future research directions to suggest the inclusion of additional variables—such as prior academic ability, instructional design characteristics, and broader teaching style dimensions—in order to develop more comprehensive models and further improve explanatory and predictive power.

Comments 4: It is not very clear why PLS-SEM was chosen for this study. 

Response 4: We agree that the justification for the use of PLS-SEM required further clarification.

In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the rationale for selecting PLS-SEM. We have incorporated two additional justifications into the Data Analysis section in order to improve the clarity and transparency of the analytical approach.

Comments 5: Low to moderate explanatory power (R² values) suggesting that other important variables may be missing.

Response 5: We acknowledge that the R² values reported in the study can be considered low to moderate, which may suggest that additional variables could further enhance the explanatory power of the model.

However, it is important to note that, in the context of social and behavioral sciences, R² values of this magnitude are commonly considered acceptable, particularly when examining complex psychological and educational constructs influenced by multiple factors (Hair & Alamer, 2022). Moreover, the primary aim of this study was not only to maximize explained variance but also to examine the underlying mechanisms linking instructor clarity, academic satisfaction, state motivation, and students’ interest within a theoretically grounded framework. In addition, the predictive assessment of the model (PLSpredict) indicated satisfactory predictive performance, supporting the practical relevance of the model despite moderate R² values.

Nevertheless, we agree that additional variables could improve the explanatory capacity of the model. Accordingly, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and suggested the inclusion of relevant factors in future research.

Comments 6: The authors indicate that there is a conceptual overlap between a number of constructs (satisfaction, motivation) that may suggest that discriminant validity is lacking, regardless of whether the recommended threshold values are reached.

Response 6: We acknowledge that certain constructs included in the model—such as academic satisfaction and state motivation—are conceptually related, as they both belong to the affective–motivational domain of the learning process.

However, from a theoretical perspective, these constructs represent distinct dimensions. Academic satisfaction refers to students’ cognitive evaluation of their educational experience (Insunza et al., 2015), whereas state motivation reflects a situational and dynamic motivational orientation toward learning activities (Brophy, 1983). Therefore, although related, they capture different psychological processes.

From an empirical standpoint, discriminant validity was assessed using established criteria, including the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, with all values falling within the recommended thresholds. These results support the distinction between constructs despite their conceptual proximity.

However, we have strengthened the discussion of discriminant validity in the measurement model section.

Comments 7: Why did the first author self-cite himself in 9 previous publications? 

Response 7: We would like to clarify that the self-citations included in the manuscript were selected based on their direct relevance to the research topic, particularly in relation to instructor communication, academic satisfaction, state motivation, and student interest in higher education contexts.

Several of these cited works contribute to the conceptual development of the constructs examined in the present study and, in some cases, involve the validation or adaptation of measurement instruments used in the research. Therefore, their inclusion was intended to ensure theoretical coherence and methodological transparency.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. Below, I provide constructive feedback to help enhance its clarity, depth, and scholarly impact. I hope these suggestions assist you in refining your work and strengthening its contributions.

 

Title

 Instructor Clarity and Student Interest: The Mediating Role of Students’ Academic Satisfaction and State Motivation in Spanish Higher Education

Abstract

1. The abstract provides information about the sample and data analysis technique; however, it does not clearly specify the type of study or the data collection method.
2. The results are described in general terms. Including more specific findings (e.g., relative importance of mediators) would strengthen the abstract
3. The conclusion is somewhat general and could be more closely aligned with the specific findings of the study to enhance its impact.

Introduction

4. The literature review is predominantly descriptive and would benefit from a more critical synthesis of prior studies, including comparisons, inconsistencies, and theoretical tensions.

Methodology

5. The methodology section clearly specifies the study design; however, this information is not reflected in the abstract. Please ensure consistency between sections.
6. The use of convenience sampling is acknowledged; however, no justification or discussion of its limitations is provided.
7. Although the instruments are described, the methodology section lacks information on their reliability and validity.
8. The procedure is generally described; however, additional details regarding administration conditions

Results

9. Although mediation effects are reported, they are not sufficiently emphasized in the results section. Given their central role in the study, these findings should be more clearly highlighted
10. Lack of reporting effect size interpretation. Beta values reported, but no interpretation of magnitude. Which effects are strong vs weak? Which variable is most influential?

 

Discussion

11. The discussion section largely reiterates the results for each hypothesis without sufficient critical interpretation.
12. The discussion adopts a largely confirmatory tone and does not consider alternative explanations or contradictory findings.
13. The discussion does not explicitly reconnect the findings to the research gap identified earlier. The study claimed: novelty (Spanish context, mediation model). But the discussion does not clearly return to and close this gap

Conclusion

14. The conclusion largely reiterates the main findings already presented in the results and discussion sections. It would benefit from a more integrative synthesis that highlights the broader contribution of the study.
15. Overgeneralization of findings. Claims: “Relevant factor in shaping positive learning experiences” or “strategy for developing more effective university education systems”. But is based on a, single sample, convenience sampling, cross-sectional design.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract provides information about the sample and data analysis technique; however, it does not clearly specify the type of study or the data collection method.

Response 1: We agree that the abstract should clearly specify the study design and data collection method.

In response to this comment, we have revised the abstract to explicitly include the research design (quantitative, cross-sectional, ex post facto) and the data collection method (survey). Additionally, we have clarified the use of a non-probabilistic convenience sampling approach.

Comments 2: The results are described in general terms. Including more specific findings (e.g., relative importance of mediators) would strengthen the abstract.

Response 2: We agree that including more specific findings would strengthen the clarity and informativeness of the abstract.

In response to this comment, we have revised the abstract to provide a more precise description of the results. Specifically, we now highlight the relative importance of the mediating variables, indicating that state motivation emerged as the strongest predictor of students’ interest, while the direct effect of instructor clarity was comparatively weaker.

Comments 3: The conclusion is somewhat general and could be more closely aligned with the specific findings of the study to enhance its impact.

Response 3: We agree that the conclusion of the abstract should be more closely aligned with the specific findings of the study.

In response to this comment, we have revised the final sentence of the abstract to more explicitly reflect the main results of the study. In particular, we now emphasize that instructor clarity influences student interest primarily through its indirect effects via academic satisfaction and state motivation, highlighting the central role of these mediating mechanisms.

Comments 4: The literature review is predominantly descriptive and would benefit from a more critical synthesis of prior studies, including comparisons, inconsistencies, and theoretical tensions.

Response 4: We agree that a more critical synthesis of the literature strengthens the theoretical contribution of the manuscript.

In response to this suggestion, we have substantially revised the literature review to incorporate a more critical and integrative perspective. Specifically, we have added new paragraphs in key sections of the manuscript to explicitly address theoretical tensions, inconsistencies, and gaps in prior research.

First, at the end of Section 2.1, we introduced a critical discussion of the potential tensions between rhetorical and relational goals, highlighting possible conflicts between relational emphasis and academic rigor, as well as inconsistencies across disciplinary contexts.

Second, at the end of Section 2.2, we incorporated a critical synthesis of the literature on instructor clarity, addressing its boundary conditions and potential unintended effects, particularly in relation to self-regulated learning and the role of student experience.

Finally, at the beginning of Section 3, we added a paragraph that integrates the constructs of academic satisfaction, state motivation, and interest, identifying fragmentation in prior research and inconsistencies regarding their temporal and causal relationships. This addition provides a stronger justification for the proposed mediational model.

Comments 5: The methodology section clearly specifies the study design; however, this information is not reflected in the abstract. Please ensure consistency between sections.

Response 5: We agree that the study design should be explicitly stated in the abstract to ensure consistency with the methodology section.

In response to this comment, we have revised the abstract to include a clear description of the research design, specifying that a quantitative, cross-sectional, ex post facto design was employed using a survey method.

Comments 6: The use of convenience sampling is acknowledged; however, no justification or discussion of its limitations is provided.

Response 6: We agree that the use of convenience sampling requires explicit justification and discussion of its limitations.

In response to this observation, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly address this issue in the Limitations section. Specifically, we now acknowledge that the use of a convenience sampling approach may introduce selection bias and limit the representativeness of the sample.

Additionally, we have incorporated suggestions for future research, emphasizing the need to employ more diverse and representative sampling strategies in order to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Comments 7: Although the instruments are described, the methodology section lacks information on their reliability and validity.

Response 7: We understand that, in addition to reporting the reliability and validity of the measurement model, it is also relevant to provide information on the psychometric properties of the instruments used.

In response to this comment, we have revised the Instruments section to include information on the reliability of each scale based on previous validation studies, specifically reporting Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability values from the adapted versions.

Comments 8: The procedure is generally described; however, additional details regarding administration conditions.

Response 8: We agree that providing more detailed information about the administration conditions improves the clarity and methodological rigor of the study.

In response to this comment, we have revised the Procedure section to include additional details regarding the administration context. Specifically, we have clarified that the instruments were administered in a controlled classroom environment during regular class hours, that standardized instructions were provided to all participants, and that questionnaires were completed individually.

We have also specified that no incentives were offered and that students were explicitly informed that their responses would not affect their academic evaluation, in order to minimize potential response bias.

Comments 9: Although mediation effects are reported, they are not sufficiently emphasized in the results section. Given their central role in the study, these findings should be more clearly highlighted.

Response 9: We agree that the mediation effects play a central role in the study and should be more clearly emphasized in the Results section.

In response to this comment, we have revised the corresponding paragraph to provide a more explicit interpretation of the mediating effects. Specifically, we have highlighted the role of academic satisfaction and state motivation as key explanatory mechanisms through which instructor clarity influences students’ interest, and clarified the complementary nature of the mediation effects.

Comments 10: Lack of reporting effect size interpretation. Beta values reported, but no interpretation of magnitude. Which effects are strong vs weak? Which variable is most influential?

Response 10: We agree that interpreting the magnitude of the effects is essential to better understand the relative importance of the relationships in the model.

In response to this suggestion, we have revised the Results section to include a more detailed interpretation of the standardized path coefficients. Specifically, we now indicate which effects can be considered weak, moderate, or strong, and we identify state motivation as the most influential predictor of students’ interest.

We have also clarified the magnitude of the indirect effects, highlighting their role as small-to-moderate complementary mediating mechanisms.

Comments 11: The discussion section largely reiterates the results for each hypothesis without sufficient critical interpretation.

Response 11: We agree that the discussion section should go beyond a descriptive restatement of results and provide a more critical and interpretative analysis.

In response to this suggestion, we have substantially revised the discussion section to incorporate a more analytical perspective. Specifically, we have added critical interpretations to each set of hypotheses, including reflections on the relative strength of effects, the indirect nature of key relationships, and the theoretical implications of the findings.

In particular, we have emphasized the comparatively weaker direct effect of instructor clarity on student interest, highlighting the importance of affective–motivational mediating mechanisms. We have also discussed theoretical tensions in the literature, such as the directionality between academic satisfaction and motivation, and the central role of state motivation as the strongest predictor of student interest.

Comments 12: The discussion adopts a largely confirmatory tone and does not consider alternative explanations or contradictory findings.

Response 12: We agree that the discussion should go beyond a confirmatory tone and incorporate alternative explanations and potential contradictions in the interpretation of the findings.

In response to this suggestion, we have revised the discussion section to include a more critical and balanced perspective. Specifically, we have incorporated alternative interpretations of the results, such as the possibility of reciprocal relationships between variables, the influence of unobserved factors (e.g., prior ability or course characteristics), and the potential role of contextual conditions in shaping the observed effects.

Additionally, we have acknowledged inconsistencies in the literature and highlighted that some relationships—particularly between academic satisfaction and state motivation—remain theoretically unresolved. We have also discussed the possibility of alternative structural models, including parallel and reciprocal configurations among the variables.

Comments 13: The discussion does not explicitly reconnect the findings to the research gap identified earlier. The study claimed: novelty (Spanish context, mediation model). But the discussion does not clearly return to and close this gap.

Response 13: We agree that the discussion should more explicitly reconnect the findings with the research gap identified in the introduction.

In response to this suggestion, we have revised the opening section of the discussion to explicitly articulate how the results address the previously identified gap. Specifically, we now highlight that the study provides empirical evidence from the Spanish higher education context—an underrepresented setting in the literature—and tests an integrated mediational model that incorporates both academic satisfaction and state motivation.

We have also clarified how these contributions extend prior research predominantly conducted in Anglo-Saxon contexts and offer a more comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms linking instructor clarity and student interest.

Comments 14: The conclusion largely reiterates the main findings already presented in the results and discussion sections. It would benefit from a more integrative synthesis that highlights the broader contribution of the study.

Response 14: We agree that the conclusion should go beyond a summary of findings and provide a more integrative synthesis of the study’s overall contribution.

In response to this suggestion, we have revised the conclusion section to incorporate a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Specifically, we have added a synthesizing opening statement that frames the findings as part of a coherent explanatory process, as well as a closing paragraph that explicitly highlights the broader theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

These revisions emphasize the role of instructor clarity as a central mechanism within a dynamic affective–motivational process, the contribution of the proposed mediational model, and the relevance of the findings for advancing instructional communication research in underexplored contexts.

Comments 15: Overgeneralization of findings. Claims: “Relevant factor in shaping positive learning experiences” or “strategy for developing more effective university education systems”. But is based on a, single sample, convenience sampling, cross-sectional design.

Response 15: We agree that the conclusions should be carefully framed to avoid overgeneralization beyond the scope of the study design.

In response to this comment, we have revised the conclusion section to moderate the strength of the claims and explicitly acknowledge the contextual and methodological boundaries of the findings. Specifically, we have introduced more cautious language (e.g., “within the specific context of this study” and “may represent”) and added a statement highlighting the limitations associated with the use of a single sample, convenience sampling, and a cross-sectional design.

We have also clarified that the broader implications should be interpreted with caution and that further research is needed to confirm the applicability of the findings across different contexts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses the relationships between instructor clarity and student interest, both directly and indirectly, through the mediating role of academic satisfaction and state motivation. This constitutes a topic of considerable importance from an educational perspective, particularly given that the examined relationships have not been extensively identified in prior research. A notable methodological strength of the study lies in its application of structural equation modeling, employed not only to investigate the hypothesized relationships but also to assess the predictive capability of the proposed model. The reference list comprises 72 carefully selected and appropriately utilized publications, which attests to the scholarly rigor of the literature base underpinning the study. The research hypotheses are clearly and precisely formulated; however, they would benefit from more extensive elaboration and a more systematic reference to existing empirical evidence. Finally, the practical recommendations put forward by the authors are regarded as a particularly valuable contribution of the study, as they offer actionable guidance for teaching practice and faculty development in higher education settings.

Nevertheless, despite its undeniable strengths, the article demonstrates a considerably weak connection to the concept of sustainable development and, by extension, to the thematic scope and editorial profile of the journal. While such connections can be made more explicit, doing so would require substantial revision and careful elaboration. It is therefore recommended that the authors revisit the abstract, keywords, rationale, and conclusions with a view to establishing clear and meaningful references to the specific Sustainable Development Goals with which the content of the article substantively corresponds.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The research hypotheses are clearly and precisely formulated; however, they would benefit from more extensive elaboration and a more systematic reference to existing empirical evidence.

Response 1: We appreciate the recognition of the clarity and precision of the research hypotheses.

In response to this suggestion, we have revised and expanded the theoretical justification of the hypotheses in the manuscript. Specifically, we have incorporated a more systematic integration of previous empirical evidence to better support each proposed relationship, strengthening the connection between the theoretical framework and existing research findings.

These revisions aim to provide a more comprehensive and robust foundation for the hypotheses while maintaining clarity and coherence in their formulation. The corresponding changes have been included in the Objectives and Hypotheses section of the manuscript.

Comments 2: Nevertheless, despite its undeniable strengths, the article demonstrates a considerably weak connection to the concept of sustainable development and, by extension, to the thematic scope and editorial profile of the journal. While such connections can be made more explicit, doing so would require substantial revision and careful elaboration. It is therefore recommended that the authors revisit the abstract, keywords, rationale, and conclusions with a view to establishing clear and meaningful references to the specific Sustainable Development Goals with which the content of the article substantively corresponds.

Response 2: We fully agree that the connection between the study and the concept of sustainable development should be made more explicit and conceptually integrated throughout the manuscript.

In response to this suggestion, we have strengthened the link to sustainability across several sections of the manuscript. Specifically:

• Abstract: We have incorporated an explicit sustainability rationale, highlighting the relevance of instructor clarity for promoting inclusive, equitable, and high-quality learning environments aligned with SDG 4.
• Keywords: We have refined the keywords to include more specific terms related to sustainability, such as “sustainable development goals” and “educational sustainability.”
• Conclusion: We have expanded the discussion of the study’s broader contribution by explicitly framing instructor clarity as a pedagogical mechanism that contributes to sustainable education systems, emphasizing its role in fostering equity, student well-being, and long-term engagement.

These revisions aim to move beyond a peripheral mention of sustainability and instead position the study within the broader framework of educational sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments addressed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The revised manuscript shows a clear and substantial improvement. The authors have addressed all reviewer comments thoroughly and with appropriate depth. The abstract is now more precise, the literature review demonstrates stronger critical synthesis, and the methodology and results sections provide greater clarity and rigor.

The discussion has been significantly strengthened, particularly through the inclusion of alternative explanations and a clearer connection to the identified research gap. Additionally, the conclusions are now more balanced and appropriately aligned with the study’s design and limitations.

Overall, the revisions are well executed and consistently reflected throughout the manuscript. I have no major remaining concerns.

 

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was corrected acccording my suggestions. The article could be published now.