Strategies That Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As mentioned in the first review, the paper has great value for addressing the issues of self-regulated learning (SRL) positive impact on the academic performance of secondary school students mediated by the student`s volitive strategies.

The article has a well-constructed argumentation to motivate the investigation of SRL's role in academic performance in secondary school students. Also, the authors presented in an adequate synthetic manner the main theoretical perspectives of the concepts analyzed in the empirical study, based on relevant bibliographic references.

The experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis, and it is sufficiently detailed to ensure the reproduction of the results in the future. The statistical data presented are properly shown, they are easy to interpret and understand, and the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Both tables are properly elaborated to facilitate the understanding of research results. The ethical standards were respected.

The authors took into consideration the limits of the research in stating the research conclusion, respectively the correlation model between the research variables - SRL processes, volitional control strategies and students' academic performance. Also,  the authors highlight some subsequent directions of qualitative research on the influences of SRL on academic success.

The paper's discussions and conclusions are coherent and supported by sufficient references.

Congratulations to the authors for their great work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the detailed and constructive feedback provided in the review of our article. We are very pleased to know that the paper was considered valuable, particularly regarding the analysis of the impact of self-regulated learning (SRL) on academic performance. We also appreciate the recognition of the clarity and adequacy of our experimental design and conclusions. The suggestions for future research directions are highly appreciated and will certainly contribute to the continuous improvement of our work. Once again, we thank you for your support and meaningful contributions to our research.

 

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a timely and relevant topic. Grounded in recent literature, it employs specialized and appropriate terminology, ensuring clarity and accessibility for a specialized readers.

It does, however, present some aspects that need to be revised, such as some repeated phrases and ideas, which, although not particularly serious, could be streamlined to improve clarity and conciseness — e.g. lines 71 and 79, 295 and 309 basically repeat the same information; Line 102 also duplicates the same information as in previous paragraphs. Finally, the last paragraph of the article (in the Conclusions) covers the same key points from the previous one; combining them would reduce unnecessary repetition. It is expected to have some repetition of information in scientific articles, but I suggest that these lines be revised in order to improve the flow and reduce unnecessary repetition. In the discussion of the results (lines 450-452), it is not explicit which question in table 1 the author is referring to.

About the structure of the article, overall it's fine. I think that the reference to Bandura (in 2.1) would be better framed in the Introduction, since it is a baseline theoretical reference. I suggest caution in specifying the gaps in the literature on SRL and Volitional Control Strategies that are mentioned in 2.2 and 2.3, as they are somewhat beyond the scope of the article. In the definition of the concept of academic performance (2.3) the article by Manyanga et al. (2022) is referenced, probably by mistake, as it does not concern this concept.

I think it would be important to clarify that the conditions under which the questionnaires were applied were similar, regardless of the presence of the researcher (3.3).

In the presentation of the findings (4.), the article would be clearer if the results of KMO and Bartlett's were made explicit, and if it presented a table with Pearson's correlations coefficients (referred only in the text, in 4.2).

Finally, it is advisable to review the bibliographic references, as some contain minor inaccuracies (e.g. the years of publication or the volume of the publication).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to review the text in English. The text has some common typos (e.g. line 398: "emphasize" and not "emphasizes"; line 423: "analyse" and not "analyses") and some sentences that lack adequate translation to the lexicon of education (e.g. line 31: "students did not advance to the next grade or complete..." instead of "students did not pass or complete...").

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for the attention given to the article "Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement" and for the commitment of the Editorial Team at Social Sciences in making it more rigorous, clear, and relevant to the academic community.

The valuable suggestions from the Editor and Reviewers have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and incorporated the changes into the attached document, where the modifications are highlighted in green and accompanied by detailed responses to each comment.

Once again, we are grateful for your collaboration and continued support of our work.

The Authors

 

 Reviewer's comment: The article addresses a timely and relevant topic. Grounded in recent literature, it employs specialized and appropriate terminology, ensuring clarity and accessibility for a specialized readers. It does, however, present some aspects that need to be revised, such as some repeated phrases and ideas, which, although not particularly serious, could be streamlined to improve clarity and conciseness — e.g. lines 71 and 79, 295 and 309 basically repeat the same information.

Authors' comment: The texts from lines 71 and 79 were removed and merged into a single text starting at line 74. Regarding the repeated information in lines 295 and 309 (Cronbach's alpha coefficient), the text from line 295 was retained, and the content at line 309 was adjusted with a new paragraph starting at line 341. This reformulation eliminates the repetition of the Cronbach’s alpha information while preserving the essential content that justifies the data reliability based on the sample size and the number of items.

Reviewer's comment: Line 102 also duplicates the same information as in previous paragraphs.

Authors' comment: The paragraph from line 102 was rewritten, with the authors Cho & Shen (2013) removed from the text and the final references. The new paragraph presents a more concise and direct formulation, avoiding repetitions found in the original text and promoting greater fluency. Although both versions address the same core concepts (cognitive strategies and impact on academic performance), the new paragraph consolidates the information more clearly, maintaining the relevant references and reinforcing the link between self-regulation strategies and academic success. The new paragraph begins at line 109.

Reviewer's comment: Finally, the last paragraph of the article (in the Conclusions) covers the same key points from the previous one; combining them would reduce unnecessary repetition. It is expected to have some repetition of information in scientific articles, but I suggest that these lines be revised in order to improve the flow and reduce unnecessary repetition.

Authors' comment: The last two paragraphs of the Conclusions were merged into a single one, presenting a more fluid and integrated structure, avoiding redundancies and fragmentations present in the eliminated paragraphs. The reformulation unifies the message into a cohesive paragraph, clearly articulating the responsibility of schools regarding the factors that influence the teaching-learning process, especially motivational components, self-regulation, and volitional control. In addition, the new text uses more objective and precise language, contributing to a stronger and more effective conclusion. The text begins at line 586.

 Reviewer's comment: In the discussion of the results (lines 450-452), it is not explicit which question in table 1 the author is referring to.

Authors' comment: The item “vcsq5” ("thinking that, even if I skip class, I won’t enjoy it because I won’t be doing what I should") was added in line 506, corresponding to the question that received the lowest score in the sample; however, it reveals a crucial attitude for students' volitional control.

Reviewer's comment: About the structure of the article, overall it's fine. I think that the reference to Bandura (in 2.1) would be better framed in the Introduction, since it is a baseline theoretical reference.

Authors' comment: A reference to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory was included in line 39 of the Introduction, providing a solid theoretical foundation that deepens and contextualizes the concepts previously introduced in the paragraph, namely SRL and volitional control. By invoking Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, the text reinforces the relevance of personal agency as a central element in explaining academic success, establishing a clear link between the mentioned factors and one of the main theoretical approaches in the field of educational psychology. This inclusion contributes to the argumentative coherence of the paragraph and broadens the analytical perspective on self-regulatory processes.

Reviewer's comment: I suggest caution in specifying the gaps in the literature on SRL and Volitional Control Strategies that are mentioned in 2.2 and 2.3, as they are somewhat beyond the scope of the article.

Authors' comment: The statements regarding gaps in the literature in sections 2.2 (line 172) and 2.3 (line 204) were replaced, softening the respective formulations so as not to exceed the scope of the article. The new versions maintain the scientific relevance of the topic but adopt a more balanced and cautious approach, avoiding overly general or categorical assertions. This reinforces the need for further research without devaluing existing contributions, aligning the tone with a more rigorous and realistic stance on the current state of knowledge.

Reviewer's comment: In the definition of the concept of academic performance (2.3) the article by Manyanga et al. (2022) is referenced, probably by mistake, as it does not concern this concept.

Authors' comment: The study by Manyanga et al. (2022) was removed from the text and references due to its unsatisfactory definition of the concept of academic performance. To replace it, a new paragraph was included (line 180) with another reference that better frames the concept of academic performance.

Reviewer's comment: I think it would be important to clarify that the conditions under which the questionnaires were applied were similar, regardless of the presence of the researcher (3.3).

Authors' comment: In line 311, a sentence was added that adequately addresses the reviewer’s suggestion, as it clearly states that, regardless of the method of administration — including the presence or absence of the researcher — equivalent conditions of confidentiality, anonymity, and instructions were ensured. These elements guarantee the uniformity of procedures, reflecting a concern for methodological consistency across all application contexts.

Reviewer's comment: In the presentation of the findings (4.), the article would be clearer if the results of KMO and Bartlett's were made explicit, and if it presented a table with Pearson's correlations coefficients (referred only in the text, in 4.2).

Authors' comment: In line 391, the KMO and Bartlett’s test values for the constructs SRL and volitional control strategies were added, as these indices are essential to demonstrate the adequacy of the sample and the correlation between variables, legitimizing the performance of factor analysis and reinforcing the robustness of the statistical procedures adopted. In line 425, information was included regarding the additional analysis to measure the intensity and direction of the linear relationship between the variables under study, as well as the inclusion of Table 3 concerning the Pearson correlations of the variables included in the model.

Reviewer's comment: Finally, it is advisable to review the bibliographic references, as some contain minor inaccuracies (e.g. the years of publication or the volume of the publication).

Authors' comment: The references were checked, and some inaccuracies were corrected.

Reviewer's comment: Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to review the text in English. The text has some common typos (e.g. line 398: "emphasize" and not "emphasizes"; line 423: "analyse" and not "analyses") and some sentences that lack adequate translation to the lexicon of education (e.g. line 31: "students did not advance to the next grade or complete..." instead of "students did not pass or complete...").

Authors' comment: The words "emphasize" (line 453) and "analyse" (line 478) were corrected, as well as the wording of the sentence "students did not pass or complete..." (line 32). The entire text was revised considering US English, and the changes are highlighted in blue throughout the text.

 Extra revision made by the authors: In section "2.4. Hypotheses," the order of presentation of the hypotheses was changed and consolidated at the end of the explanatory section in order to improve the coherence and clarity of the text. This change aims to ensure that the reader fully understands the theoretical framework and the variables under study before the formulation of the hypotheses, facilitating the understanding of the research objectives.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents the results of a study conducted with students from grades 7 to 9, from Portugal, aiming to establish a relation between Self-regulated learning, Volitional control and Academic performance. Clear expertise and extensive experience in these subjects are evident, making the chosen methodology appropriate for the study’s objectives. Moreover, the study succeeds in demonstrating that these factors influence academic success. The revisions introduced by the author have significantly improved this article, strengthening its scientific merit.

However, despite careful revision and having completed the text, some aspects still need to be refined to enhance its scientific rigour:

• In line 450, it is stated that the results suggest a superior correlation between SRL and academic performance, however, since they fall into a "moderate to strong" range, I suggest using the term ‘higher’ to describe them
• The sentences between lines 172 and 177 refer to the same information.
• In 4.2, Table 3, with Pearson's correlation values, should be referred to in the body of the text.
• Also in 4.2, to make the correlation values more complete, the paragraph should include, for example, “(all p-values < 0.01)".

As for the writing, there are still some aspects that could benefit from further revision:

• The sentence between lines 235 and 237 needs to be revised to clarify the meaning.
• In the sentence of line 240, the expression crossed out can be replaced by "are more prepared to" or "are more likely to effectively"
• In line 426, the expression "Cf." should be changed to "as shown in table 3" or "See Table 3 for details"
• Please correct the acronym on line 431: ‘SEL’ appears to be a typographical error and should be “SRL”
• In lines 450 and 451, the word “confirm” is repeated within the same sentence; please consider rephrasing to avoid redundancy.
• In line 489, consider replacing “it was found” with “the findings showed” for a more active and precise phrasing
• In line 490 "choose" could be replaced by "employ"
• In line 493, consider revising "themselves" for agreement with the singular subject "a student". You may use "himself or herself" or rephrase to use singular "they" consistently
• Please consider varying the opening expressions of consecutive paragraphs (e.g., lines 489 and 513) to avoid stylistic repetition and improve the flow
• The tables must be fully translated into English; the word "Legend" should be replaced with "Note"
• Finally, it is worth reviewing the bibliographic references, as some are not used in the article (e.g. Liangruenrom et al. [2019], McCann & Turner [2004]).

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the attention given to the article "Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement" and for the commitment of the Editorial Team at Social Sciences in making it more rigorous, clear, and relevant to the academic community.

The valuable suggestions from the Editor and Reviewers have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and incorporated the changes into the attached document, where the modifications are highlighted in green and accompanied by detailed responses to each comment.

Once again, we are grateful for your collaboration and continued support of our work.

The Authors

 

Reviewer's comment: In line 450, it is stated that the results suggest a superior correlation between SRL and academic performance, however, since they fall into a "moderate to strong" range, I suggest using the term ‘higher’ to describe them

Authors' comment: In line 457, the word “superior” was replaced with “higher” for a better alignment with the values.

 

Reviewer's comment: The sentences between lines 172 and 177 refer to the same information

Authors' comment: The two paragraphs mentioned between lines 172 and 177 were merged and rewritten to avoid confusion in reading and interpretation. The new text begins on line 172.

 

Reviewer's comment: In 4.2, Table 3, with Pearson's correlation values, should be referred to in the body of the text.

Authors' comment: In line 374, a reference to Table 3 was added in the body of the text.

 

Reviewer's comment: Also in 4.2, to make the correlation values more complete, the paragraph should include, for example, “(all p-values < 0.01)".

Authors' comment: In lines 377, 378, and 380, the values of "p < 0.01" were added to the respective correlations.

 

As for the writing, there are still some aspects that could benefit from further revision:

 

Reviewer's comment: The sentence between lines 235 and 237 needs to be revised to clarify the meaning.

Authors' comment: In line 239, the beginning of the justification for hypothesis H1 was rewritten to clarify its meaning.

 

Reviewer's comment: In the sentence of line 240, the expression crossed out can be replaced by "are more prepared to" or "are more likely to effectively"

Authors' comment: As suggested, in line 244, the expression “are better able to” was replaced with “are more prepared to”, slightly shifting the focus of the sentence and improving clarity of intent by emphasising the anticipation of difficulties.

 

Reviewer's comment: In line 426, the expression "Cf." should be changed to "as shown in Table 3" or "See Table 3 for details"

Authors' comment: As suggested, in line 432 (cf. Table 3) was replaced with (see Table 3 for details).

 

Reviewer's comment: Please correct the acronym on line 431: ‘SEL’ appears to be a typographical error and should be “SRL”

Authors' comment: In line 438, the acronym “SEL” was corrected to “SRL”.

 

Reviewer's comment: In lines 450 and 451, the word “confirm” is repeated within the same sentence; please consider rephrasing to avoid redundancy.

Authors' comment: Regarding lines 456 and 457, the word “confirm” was replaced with “demonstrate” to avoid redundancy.

 

Reviewer's comment: In line 489, consider replacing “it was found” with “the findings showed” for a more active and precise phrasing

Authors' comment: As suggested, in line 495, the expression “it was found” was replaced with “the findings showed” in order to make the phrasing more active and precise.

 

Reviewer's comment: In line 490, "choose" could be replaced by "employ"

Authors' comment: As suggested, in line 496, the word "choose" was replaced by "employ," improving semantic accuracy, formality, and academic appropriateness.

 

Reviewer's comment: In line 493, consider revising "themselves" for agreement with the singular subject "a student". You may use "himself or herself" or rephrase to use singular "they" consistently

Authors' comment: We appreciate the observation. In line 500, the choice was made to maintain the formulation "a student who considers themselves self-regulated," as the use of the singular neuter pronoun "they" is widely accepted in academic and editorial contexts as an inclusive and appropriate form for singular subjects of unspecified gender. This choice follows the style guidelines of publications such as the APA and aims to promote clearer and more inclusive language.

 

Reviewer's comment: Please consider varying the opening expressions of consecutive paragraphs (e.g., lines 489 and 513) to avoid stylistic repetition and improve the flow

Authors' comment: In line 520, the word "Concerning" was replaced by "Regarding" to vary the paragraph opening expressions.

 

Reviewer's comment: The tables must be fully translated into English; the word "Legend" should be replaced with "Note"

Authors' comment: In lines 368, 424, and 442, the word "Legend" was replaced with "Note." In line 442, the respective note was fully translated into English.

 

Reviewer's comment: Finally, it is worth reviewing the bibliographic references, as some are not used in the article (e.g. Liangruenrom et al. [2019], McCann & Turner [2004]).

Authors' comment: As suggested, the bibliographic references were checked, and two were removed: Liangruenrom et al. (2019) and McCann and Turner (2004). By mistake, these references were not removed in the previous review.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As strong points of the article:

- the detailed argumentation of the need to investigate the topic addressed, in the Introduction, emphasising the role of SRL in training conscious and proactive students in the learning process to guarantee academic success.

- an excellent presentation, supported by relevant bibliographic references) of the main theoretical perspectives on SRL, volitional control strategies and associated concepts (e.g. ”human agency”).

- a properly constructed and conducted research; we appreciate the correct construction of the hypotheses, and the use of standardized tests to measure the 2 investigated variables (SRL and volitional control strategies); also, the paper mentioned in the procedure that the research is based on important ethics standards (Helsinki Declaration (2013) and APA).

- the research is sufficiently detailed to ensure the reproduction of the results in the future. The statistical analysis revealed the relationship between the 3 variables investigated, thus confirming the proposed hypotheses.

- relevant discussions to highlight the results.

- we also appreciate specifying the limits of the research with the highlighting of some subsequent directions of investigation of the targeted variables.

Week points:

-        Figure 1. SEM Model is not visible.

-  The theoretical part of the paper could be improved if the authors argue the choice of grades as a way of measuring academic success (they only motivated why they chose certain subjects, but not why they measured success by grades).

 

Overall, we find this study to be relevant to the field of education. It is well-structured, the conclusions align with the evidence and arguments presented, and most of the cited references are recent publications.

 Congratulations for the authors!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We express our sincere gratitude for the attention given to the article ‘Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement’ and for the diligence and professionalism shown by the Social Sciences editorial team and the reviewers throughout the revision process. 

After submission, we received valuable suggestions from the reviewers that significantly improved the manuscript. These suggestions have been carefully analyzed and incorporated into the attached document, where the detailed responses to each comment and the changes made are duly marked in blue.

Once again, we would like to thank them for their collaboration and commitment to our work.

The authors

 Reviewer 1

 As strong points of the article:

- the detailed argumentation of the need to investigate the topic addressed, in the Introduction, emphasizing the role of SRL in training conscious and proactive students in the learning process to guarantee academic success.

- an excellent presentation, supported by relevant bibliographic references) of the main theoretical perspectives on SRL, volitional control strategies and associated concepts (e.g., ”human agency”).

- a properly constructed and conducted research; we appreciate the correct construction of the hypotheses, and the use of standardized tests to measure the 2 investigated variables (SRL and volitional control strategies); also, the paper mentioned in the procedure that the research is based on important ethics standards (Helsinki Declaration (2013) and APA).

- the research is sufficiently detailed to ensure the reproduction of the results in the future. The statistical analysis revealed the relationship between the 3 variables investigated, thus confirming the proposed hypotheses.

- relevant discussions to highlight the results.

- we also appreciate specifying the limits of the research with the highlighting of some subsequent directions of investigation of the targeted variables.

 

Week points:

Question: Figure 1. SEM Model is not visible.

Authors' Comment: Figure 1 has been included again in the study text. However, it is attached to overcome any problems that may arise during submission.

Reviewer’s Question: The theoretical part of the paper could be improved if the authors argue the choice of grades as a way of measuring academic success (they only motivated why they chose certain subjects, but not why they measured success by grades).

Author's Comment: The question posed is justified in the text.  The centrality of the core subjects (Portuguese, Mathematics, English, Natural Sciences) is justified because they provide an objective and standardized indicator that facilitates comparison between different contexts and populations and is fundamental for interdisciplinary learning. In this study, academic performance was assessed based on these student scores in the subjects indicated because their challenges and final exams play an essential role in developing the cognitive skills necessary for educational progress. These assessments make it possible to objectively measure student performance in key areas and are closely linked to academic and professional success. According to the OECD report (2023), these assessments are crucial for identifying gaps in the learning process and ensuring that all students acquire the essential competencies for adult life.

Overall, we find this study to be relevant to the field of education. It is well-structured, the conclusions align with the evidence and arguments presented, and most of the cited references are recent publications.

Congratulations for the authors!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, titled “Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement”. The study investigates the relationships between SRL, volitional control, and academic performance in a large sample of Portuguese students. However, based on the points listed below, I cannot recommend that the study be accepted for publication. My main criticism is that I am not convinced (and it is not sufficiently argued in the manuscript) that this study adds meaningfully to the already extensive literature on SRL and academic performance. The literature review is unfocused and the tested model is not sufficiently explained/justified.

1.    Introduction: The introduction is very unfocused. It starts with broad and general statements about “the lack of commitment and motivation among students” and the significance of SRL writ large. It takes too long for the reader to understand what the present research is about. I suggest stating the research questions within the first paragraphs and to add an advance organizer, before presenting the literature review. The literature review should also be more targeted toward the goal of the study and the research questions. SRL, volitional strategies and academic performance were explained to me as a reader without even knowing why I should care or which aspects are important for the current study. Moreover, the literature review fails to highlight any research gaps.

2.     Related to my previous point, the hypotheses are not well set up and it is not well explained why they are interesting. For one, there are already a plethora of studies and meta-analsyses showing the positive relationship between SRL and academic performance. However, these studies and meta-analyses are not part of the literature review (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 - but there are many more) and it is not explained what the current study adds. The same goes for hypotheses H2 and H3.

3.    Especially H2 and how it is investigated seems pointless to me. Volitional control strategies are part of the umbrella concept of “self-regulated learning” (as also argued by the authors in the literature review), so of course a trait measure of SRL and a trait measure of VC share common variance. How does this add to our understanding of self-regulated learning?  

4.    How were the grades for Portuguese, Mathematics, English, and Natural Sciences combined into one score for academic performance?

5.    On p. 7, l. 324 the authors state: “Finally, to understand the intensity and direction of the relationships between the 324 constructs, Pearson's linear correlation (r) was applied.” A similar statement is made on p. 9, l. 375 ff. Correlations don’t tell us anything about the direction of relationships. In addition, I find it strange that the criteria for assessing the strength of correlations is based on a general book about the method (Hair et al., 2019). Considering all the factors that influence academic performance, I would argue that one factor explaining almost 16% of the variance should not be considered “weak” (see again https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 for reference).

6.    There might be a problem with the PDF file, I cannot see figure 1. In any case, it should be explained in more detail why the model is proposed this way. Right now, I don’t understand Table 2. Does this mean, for example, that “self-regulated learning” was assumed to influence “Planning (SRL)”? Is this a measurement model? This needs more explanation, and (relating back to my earlier points) it must be explained why the mediation was assumed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We express our sincere gratitude for the attention given to the article ‘Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement’ and for the diligence and professionalism shown by the Social Sciences editorial team and the reviewers throughout the revision process. 

After submission, we received valuable suggestions from the reviewers that significantly improved the manuscript. These suggestions have been carefully analyzed and incorporated into the attached document, where the detailed responses to each comment and the changes made are duly marked in blue.

Once again, we would like to thank them for their collaboration and commitment to our work.

The authors

Reviewer 2

Reviewer’s Question: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, titled “Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement”. The study investigates the relationships between SRL, volitional control, and academic performance in a large sample of Portuguese students. However, based on the points listed below, I cannot recommend that the study be accepted for publication. My main criticism is that I am not convinced (and it is not sufficiently argued in the manuscript) that this study adds meaningfully to the already extensive literature on SRL and academic performance. The literature review is unfocused and the tested model is not sufficiently explained/justified.

Authors' Comment: We appreciate the comment, which we consider pertinent, regarding the question presented. Although it is a well-established area, studying the interaction between SRL and volitional control is essential to understanding the internal mechanisms that influence academic success, mainly in Portuguese students, where these variables have not previously been studied. Through the model presented, this investigation may clarify how these variables combine to improve student performance, especially in dynamic and challenging educational contexts. Furthermore, by exploring these interactions, the study allows us to deepen our knowledge about specific processes that have not yet been sufficiently detailed in the existing literature.

Throughout the text of the article, the justifications for the proposed approach are presented in a more developed and reasoned way, highlighting the relevance and practical implications of the expected results. We are confident this analysis can enrich theoretical understanding and offer helpful directions for evidence-based pedagogical and educational interventions in Portuguese reality.

Reviewer’s Question: 1.    Introduction: The introduction is very unfocused. It starts with broad and general statements about “the lack of commitment and motivation among students” and the significance of SRL writ large. It takes too long for the reader to understand what the present research is about. I suggest stating the research questions within the first paragraphs and to add an advance organizer, before presenting the literature review. The literature review should also be more targeted toward the goal of the study and the research questions. SRL, volitional strategies and academic performance were explained to me as a reader without even knowing why I should care or which aspects are important for the current study. Moreover, the literature review fails to highlight any research gaps.

Authors' Comment: The introductory text was reorganized to highlight the importance of studying the variables under analysis, highlighting their specificity for understanding academic success. It was argued that although numerous studies on the impact of SRL and volitional strategies on school performance, the precise mechanisms that support this relationship remain mostly unclear, pointing to gaps in the literature that must be overcome.

The need to continue investigating the interaction between SRL and volitional strategies was highlighted, as they play complementary roles in academic success. This study contributes to a more in-depth understanding of these processes, exploring how these strategies can promote effective learning, overcome students' lack of interest and motivation, and encourage greater autonomy in the educational journey. Three new references were added to the text and the respective bibliography.

Reviewer’s Question: 2.     Related to my previous point, the hypotheses are not well set up and it is not well explained why they are interesting. For one, there are already a plethora of studies and meta-analyses showing the positive relationship between SRL and academic performance. However, these studies and meta-analyses are not part of the literature review (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 - but there are many more) and it is not explained what the current study adds. The same goes for hypotheses H2 and H3.

Authors' Comment: Regarding the formulation of the hypotheses, an in-depth analysis of each of them was carried out based on the results of previous studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This analysis allowed us to explain the individual relevance of each hypothesis and justify its inclusion in the present study. This approach made it possible to guarantee the relevance and solidity of each hypothesis, in addition to identifying gaps in the literature that the present study aims to fill.

Reviewer’s Question: 3. Especially H2 and how it is investigated seems pointless to me. Volitional control strategies are part of the umbrella concept of “self-regulated learning” (as also argued by the authors in the literature review), so of course a trait measure of SRL and a trait measure of VC share common variance. How does this add to our understanding of self-regulated learning? 

Authors' Comment: Although many studies have already demonstrated the positive relationship between SRL and academic performance, research on volitional control can be deepened in specific contexts, such as basic education in Portugal. This study can provide insights into how students in the early stages of academic development use volitional control strategies to self-regulate their learning, which can be fundamental to identifying the specific needs of this age group as the capacity for self-regulation develops throughout time.

Furthermore, volitional control strategies are essential components of SRL, as they involve the ability to make decisions and control impulses to achieve academic goals. By investigating how volitional control impacts SRL in younger students, the study may reveal essential mechanisms that allow these students to manage their learning more effectively. In this sense, the study can also contribute to identifying specific strategies that can be taught to these students, offering new possibilities for pedagogical practices. Even though studies already show the relationship between SRL and academic performance, focusing on volitional control strategies can add value to developing intervention programs to improve learning.

Although hypotheses H2 and H3 may seem redundant at first glance, they may be relevant, as they allow exploring how SRL and volitional control variables interact in different educational and developmental contexts. Although these variables share common variances, a detailed study of these interactions can enrich our understanding of the role of volitional control within the broader concept of SRL, helping to identify how these dimensions influence each other over time.

Finally, even if the literature review did not include some relevant studies, this does not invalidate the potential contribution of the current study. Including new samples and methodologies can bring innovative findings that enrich existing knowledge. Furthermore, the study's results may have practical implications, such as recommending teaching strategies that promote both SRL and volitional control in an integrated way. Thus, the study's relevance lies in deepening the understanding of the development of self-regulation in primary school students, identifying specific ways to support their learning process, and considering the interaction between SRL and volitional control.

Reviewer’s Question: 4. How were the grades for Portuguese, Mathematics, English, and Natural Sciences combined into one score for academic performance?

Authors' Comment: The text included an explanation of how assessments from the subjects considered in the study were combined into a single indicator of academic performance by modeling these assessments as indicator variables of a latent construct.

In the context of Structural Equation Models (SEM), assessments from different disciplines can be combined into a single indicator of academic performance through a multidimensional model that integrates several dimensions into a latent construct. This indicator, a variable not directly observable, is represented by manifest variables, such as Portuguese, Mathematics, English and Natural Sciences assessments, which reflect different aspects of academic performance.

Subject assessments are used as indicators of the latent construct, with the relationship between the construct and manifest variables being modelled using equations. These grades, when representing facets of overall performance, are often correlated, given that success in one discipline tends to be associated with performance in others. The SEM model allows for the capture of these correlations and the evaluation of the degree of interrelationship between areas of knowledge.

In this model, subjects collectively contribute to the academic performance construct, enabling the estimation of the relative weight of each variable. SEM analysis also allows you to explore interactions between variables and evaluate how they relate to overall performance. After estimating the model, the latent construct can be interpreted as a holistic measure of the student's academic performance, integrating information from different disciplines.

Reviewer’s Question: 5. On p. 7, l. 324 the authors state: “Finally, to understand the intensity and direction of the relationships between the 324 constructs, Pearson's linear correlation (r) was applied.” A similar statement is made on p. 9, l. 375 ff. Correlations don’t tell us anything about the direction of relationships. In addition, I find it strange that the criteria for assessing the strength of correlations is based on a general book about the method (Hair et al., 2019). Considering all the factors that influence academic performance, I would argue that one factor explaining almost 16% of the variance should not be considered “weak” (see again https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 for reference).

Authors' Comment: We understand and respect the difference of opinion. However, the statement regarding the intensity and direction given by Pearson's brightness is based on the speciality literature (Byrne, 2013; Hair et al. 2019; Kline, 2023). According to the literature, in an SEM model, it is correct to state that Pearson's linear correlations can indicate the intensity and direction of the relationships between the constructs, as long as some aspects are considered. In SEM models, latent constructs are represented by manifest variables and correlations between these latent constructs can be estimated using standardized covariance coefficients. In conceptual terms, these coefficients are equivalent to Pearson correlations, indicating the strength and direction of the relationships between the constructs. Although SEM models present standardized coefficients that go beyond simple Pearson correlations, the concept of observation as a measure of the intensity and direction of relationships between constructs is highly recognized and supported in the literature.

Reviewer’s Question: 6.    There might be a problem with the PDF file, I cannot see figure 1. In any case, it should be explained in more detail why the model is proposed this way. Right now, I don’t understand Table 2. Does this mean, for example, that “self-regulated learning” was assumed to influence “Planning (SRL)”? Is this a measurement model? This needs more explanation, and (relating to my earlier points) it must be explained why the mediation was assumed.

Authors' Comment: Figure 1 was included again in the text of the article. However, it is attached to overcome any problems in the new submission.

Regarding Table 2, SRL represents a latent construct, consisting of its three dimensions (planning, execution, evaluation), thus giving rise to the discriminated appearance of the values ​​of the respective relationships in the table. In the case of volitional control strategies, this construct is represented by a rectangle since the instrument consists of a single unidimensional factor with 9 items. In other words, it assumes that all items measure the same underlying dimension, which can become an observed variable. This approach simplifies the model and is consistent with statistical practice in SEM, as long as there is empirical evidence to support the unidimensionality of the instrument, verified in the present study.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is quite interesting, especially as it contributes to educational psychology and how students can improve their academic performance through self-regulation and volitional control. The findings provide valuable insights into strategies that can help students stay motivated and focused, which is crucial for academic success.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We express our sincere gratitude for the attention given to the article ‘Strategies that Transform: Self-Regulation and Volitional Control as Keys to Academic Achievement’ and for the diligence and professionalism shown by the Social Sciences editorial team and the reviewers throughout the revision process. 

After submission, we received valuable suggestions from the reviewers that significantly improved the manuscript. These suggestions have been carefully analyzed and incorporated into the attached document, where the detailed responses to each comment and the changes made are duly marked in blue.

Once again, we would like to thank them for their collaboration and commitment to our work.

The authors

 

This study is quite interesting, especially as it contributes to educational psychology and how students can improve their academic performance through self-regulation and volitional control. The findings provide valuable insights into strategies that can help students stay motivated and focused, which is crucial for academic success.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx