Review Reports - Higher Education Within a Post-Pandemic Digital Era: The CIRCLE Model for Supporting Generation Z and First-Generation College Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A refreshing insight into the complexity of recognising student success, particularly the factors impacting first-in-family students and emerging trends of Gen Z learners. The contribution of the model needs more substance to highlight your direct contribution to the field and distinguish it from the numerous research articles about student success. You have a sound skeleton upon which to develop a more persuasive model and provide specific, implementable strategies/recommendations.

My response to the journal’s reviewing criteria (below) elaborate on the potential for your model and its strengths.

***** 1 Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner?

Consider expanding all acronyms on their first inclusion in the body of the manuscript (“FGCS” slipped through, having been expanded in the Abstract)
To assist international readers, can you clarify early in your manuscript whether the term “college” students includes “university” students? (You also mention higher education on page 4.) I’m also unfamiliar with “TRIO grants”.

***** 2 Are most of the cited references recently published (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does the manuscript include an excessive number of self-citations?

While there are many recent publications, a few are of low quality.

Examples include un-referenced sources such as (1) Cengage’s “Perspectives” https://www.cengage-266 group.com/news/perspectives/2025/three-factors-changing-gen-zs-view-of-higher-education/, (2) Barnes & Nobel’s promotional material https://www.cengage-266 group.com/news/perspectives/2025/three-factors-changing-gen-zs-view-of-higher-education/. This is in contrast to the well-referenced Pell Institute report.

Also check that all in-text citations have full publication details in the reference lists, and all citations in the reference list are used in the body of the manuscript/

Examples of misalignment include

Erişen, Y., & Bavlı, B. (2024). Can we really teach the Generation Z? Opportunities and challenges at secondary level. Qualitative Research Journal.

Felten & Lambert 2020 lacks reference details.

The second paragraph of your “Discussion” lacks reference details.

***** 3 Is the manuscript scientifically sound, and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

n/a

***** 4 Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the Methods section?

Following an excellently detailed foundation for considering a model “to address Gen Z and FGCS preferences and needs for student success in higher education” (p.4, lines 144-5), I was disappointed with the lack of details on how the model was conceived, demonstrating the contributions of previous models and how new elements were identified and validated. Related to this, I felt that the instructional strategies proposed were sparse, arguably too sparse for this to be noted as a feature of the model. (For example, the strategy of “Including digital activities and forms of learning can enhance student motivation” (p.4, lines 173-4) for component 2 “Intriguing students with career-integrated learning and digital integration” (line 163) would benefit from more detail to assist faculty in implementing the strategy.)
Can you review some of your interpretations of the contributions of sources? For example, in my browse of Hagenauer & Volet (2014) and of Felten et al. (2023), I didn’t find a direct reference to the effect of faculty self-disclosure of “their past college challenges and experiences” (p.4, line 184). On the other hand, I noticed an example of one faculty (Manda Williams) introducing themselves at the beginning of their class in Felten & Lambert (2020, p.89); however, this strategy is not highlighted.

***** 5 Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly present the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? (Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.)

I’d like to see more depth in Figure 1. While some relationships between the Gen Z and/or First in Family elements and Student Success elements were elaborated in the text, the overall robustness of these links needs clearer and more detailed substantiation.

***** 6 Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The “Discussion” section most closely resembled a conclusion. That section resonated most strongly with “Introduction”; however, by detailing relationships between the model elements more clearly as suggested in my comments above, will help develop a robust conclusion

***** 7 Are the ethics and data availability statements adequate?

n/a.

Author Response

Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner?

Comment: Consider expanding all acronyms on their first inclusion in the body of the manuscript (“FGCS” slipped through, having been expanded in the Abstract)

Response: The author expanded all acronyms within the abstract and within the Introduction. These changes can be found on pages 1-3, where the discussion covers "United States", "First-Generation College Students", and "Generation Z". The reviewer's suggestion is applied throughout the Theoretical Frameworks section, where many existing frameworks and specific models are introduced and defined.

Comment: To assist international readers, can you clarify early in your manuscript whether the term “college” students includes “university” students? (You also mention higher education on page 4.) I’m also unfamiliar with “TRIO grants”.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this blind spot! I carefully reviewed the document and replaced US-specific references with cross-culturally inclusive wording. For example, rather than stating "TRIO programs," I stated "federally funded student support programs." Further, I added a Scope and Socio-Cultural Context section to clarify definitions, including higher education, faculty, and college students, as well as definitive explanations of the model agents and stakeholders. Lastly, the rationale for using this specific population and faculty-driven approach provided in the section. The Scope and Socio-Cultural Context section is on pages 3-5.

Are most of the cited references recently published (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does the manuscript include an excessive number of self-citations?

Comment: While there are many recent publications, a few are of low quality.

Response: The reviewer makes a great point, and this was fully embraced, as the author replaced these promotional-type citations with more credible sources. For example, the following paragraph includes Pew Research data. It replaces the less credible references from before with peer-reviewed articles on Gen Z. This is shown in the following paragraph from the revision:

In the wake of COVID-19 and the digital shift, there has been a growing discussion about mental health. According to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Loneliness (2023), there has been an increase in mental health concerns, especially among young people, as loneliness and anxiety have risen in recent years. The current rise of mental health concerns, including loneliness, has highlighted the importance of meaningful connection and faculty support (Wodika et al., 2024). It is, therefore, unsurprising that many Gen Z students look to instructors to demonstrate flexibility and care (Felton et al., 2023). Additionally, Gen Z, being a highly diverse cohort, demonstrates strong awareness of individual differences and topics such as neurodiversity and inclusion. Overall, the research suggests that the generation has struggled to find community, underscoring the importance of campus climate and social capital (Garvey et al., 2018).

Comment: Also check that all in-text citations have full publication details in the reference lists, and all citations in the reference list are used in the body of the manuscript/

Examples of misalignment include:

Erişen, Y., & Bavlı, B. (2024). Can we really teach the Generation Z? Opportunities and challenges at secondary level. Qualitative Research Journal.

Felten & Lambert 2020 lacks reference details.

The second paragraph of your “Discussion” lacks reference details.

Response: The reviewer brings up valid missalignent and citation concerns within the manuscript. To address this, the author thoroughly double checked all sources and their use in direct claims within the paper. Some sources needed to be changed to a different cited paper. For example, Felten et al (2023) for the trust moves literature. The revision, however, does include many new sections and citations. These citations and references were more closely reviewed and included within the references page.

Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the Methods section?

Comment: Following an excellently detailed foundation for considering a model “to address Gen Z and FGCS preferences and needs for student success in higher education” (p.4, lines 144-5), I was disappointed with the lack of details on how the model was conceived, demonstrating the contributions of previous models and how new elements were identified and validated. Related to this, I felt that the instructional strategies proposed were sparse, arguably too sparse for this to be noted as a feature of the model. (For example, the strategy of “Including digital activities and forms of learning can enhance student motivation” (p.4, lines 173-4) for component 2 “Intriguing students with career-integrated learning and digital integration” (line 163) would benefit from more detail to assist faculty in implementing the strategy.)

Response: The revision includes a dedicated section within the start of the methodologies providing the model construction process. Additionally, the model components have detailed sections, with implementation outlined and evidence of effectiveness provided.

Comment: Can you review some of your interpretations of the contributions of sources? For example, in my browse of Hagenauer & Volet (2014) and of Felten et al. (2023), I didn’t find a direct reference to the effect of faculty self-disclosure of “their past college challenges and experiences” (p.4, line 184). On the other hand, I noticed an example of one faculty (Manda Williams) introducing themselves at the beginning of their class in Felten & Lambert (2020, p.89); however, this strategy is not highlighted.

Response: The self-diclosure section needed further clarification on its effectiveness, and direct links to mediating factors. This section was improved significantly, with clearer citations that better align with the arguments being made. The following is one portion of the revised section:

Through academically relevant shared experiences, faculty can normalize college adversity for their students. This practice assists with approachability and faculty-student relationships (Song et al., 2016). The action of occasional self-disclosure when teaching seems simple, but it is linked to multiple mediating factors such as immediacy, belonging uncertainty, self-efficacy, faculty affect, and engagement (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Kromka & GoodBoy, 2021; Song et al., 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011). Faculty implement this component through appropriate self-disclosure, acknowledging their own academic struggles, sharing moments of doubt or failure, and articulating that challenge is a normal part of intellectual growth.

Research on faculty self-disclosure demonstrates that when instructors share relevant aspects of their academic journeys, students report greater connection, credibility, and motivation (Kromka & GoodBoy, 2021). This approach aligns with the COI's social presence effect on student satisfaction (Martin et al., 2022). Although many belonging uncertainty interventions have been delivered through peer narratives rather than faculty communication, the mechanism of normalizing adversity can also be activated with instructors (Walton & Cohen, 2011).

Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly present the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? (Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.)

Response: New figures and tables were created to provide needed detail and to properly align with the aspects of the model. These include Figures 1 and 2, and Table 1 within the revised document.

Comment: I’d like to see more depth in Figure 1. While some relationships between the Gen Z and/or First in Family elements and Student Success elements were elaborated in the text, the overall robustness of these links needs clearer and more detailed substantiation.

Response: The reviewers request for detail was especially benfitial for better conceptualization of the model and in the explanations within the document. New figures and tables were created to provide needed detail and to properly align with the aspects of the model. These include Figures 1 and 2, and Table 1 within the revised document.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

Comment: The “Discussion” section most closely resembled a conclusion. That section resonated most strongly with “Introduction”; however, by detailing relationships between the model elements more clearly as suggested in my comments above, will help develop a robust conclusion

Response: The discussion section has added sections including, the models unique contributions and comparisons to previos theories. Additionally, poracticial imlications and limtations sectiosn were added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study identifies very important problems and challenges in higher education. If it could be made workable, the introduction of the model proposed by the study would certainly be beneficial.

However, the study is not acceptable in its current form, especially not as an article.

I recommend a very thorough and detailed revision before the study is accepted and published. The length of the study is also questionable.

My recommendations are as follows:

The study shows that it applies to American higher education, citing research results from there and recommending the introduction of the model to improve the situation there. However, this is insufficient, too general, and we do not know to whom and to what the term "faculty" refers. It would be important to include a section in the study that presents the higher education actors affected by the phenomenon and the real problems, with references to research data. This could even be presented as the context of the study.

The study deals with the problems of Generation Z and first-generation college students in a very general way, which should be discussed in more detail. This could be added to the literature review section. I did not really find the connection between the theoretical framework and the model; a theoretical framework should be found and presented more emphatically for each element of the model, paying particular attention to highlighting what appears in the model from previous literature.

In the chapter on materials and methods, we expect a presentation of the methodology used as a research method, but this is not what we get. It is understandable that the author is presenting a new model, but when it comes to the methodology chapter, it would be expected to present what is new about it, how it could be more useful, and how the problems raised in the study could be remedied through the model. It would be important to present good practices and models that address the problem and to examine and present how the model proposed by the author differs from these and what solutions it offers. There are numerous American best practices that are published every year, all of which provide support for preventing dropouts at both the individual and institutional levels.

The discussion is not really what it should be; here, the author gives tips on the future usability of the model, but these are too general. This should be clarified and compared with the literature.

Author Response

Reviewer Response

Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for recognizing the importance of the topics addressed. I appreciate the depth of your feedback, as it was key to me in establishing the model's purpose. Your comments were instrumental in guiding a substantial and thorough revision of the paper.

In response to your concerns about scope and context, I added a full section that clarifies the study's socio-cultural and institutional setting. With this, I explain the relevance of this and of the model's focus. The revised manuscript now explicitly defines the U.S. higher education context, identifies the primary stakeholders (Generation Z and First-Generation College Students, as well as instructional faculty), and clearly specifies what is meant by “faculty.”

I also expanded the literature review to provide a more detailed and research-grounded discussion of Gen Z and FGCS populations. Further, large sections were written to clarify the theoretical frameworks and how the CIRCLE model builds on them. Each component of the CIRCLE model is now explicitly tied to established frameworks (e.g., Tinto, Strayhorn, Ethics of Care, Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, digital integration models, and Career Development Learning), with clearer articulation of what is drawn directly from prior scholarship and how those elements are synthesized.

Regarding methodology, I clarified that this is a conceptual model developed through structured narrative synthesis of established bodies of literature. The Materials and Methods section now includes an explanation of the criteria used to integrate the frameworks and specifies the model’s novel contribution.

Finally, the Discussion section was revised to move beyond general usability suggestions. It now more directly compares the CIRCLE model to existing interventions and articulates its distinct contribution as a holistic, embedded, and scalable framework rather than a standalone program. This section includes implications and future directions, and clearly identifies the gaps in the literature that the model addresses. The revision is much more thorough and provides the necessary depth that backs the importance of the proposed model.

I appreciate the opportunity to strengthen the conceptual precision and practical clarity of the work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on your resubmission. A thorough and informative response to my initial feedback, confidently woven into a substantially improved
version of the manuscript.

1. Acronyms are now introduced in full before relying on reader familiarity with these.
2. Substitution of low-quality references for scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, and better use of these more authoritative materials.
3. Fewer orphaned in-text citations and unreferenced sources in the reference list. Keep checking though as occasional slippages occur (e.g. Beymer (2025)
is referred to on pages 10 & 11, but not in the reference list; also the source for "the U.S Surgeon Generals... " wasn't easily identified in the reference list
(under "O" in the reference list).
4. Methodologies for deriving a unique model and its relationship to existing models is much more visible and cogently argued/presented.
5. The impact of self-disclosure (by both faculty and more senior students) is well illustrated and more clearly related to the literature linking self-disclosure
with "belonging".
6. The combination of figures 2 & 1 provides greater clarity about the CIRCLE framework, which is consolidated by Table 1.
7. The basis for drawing your conclusion is much more visible in this revision.

8. Your thoughtful responses to my comments have been fluently incorporated into the manuscript. The result is a compelling rationale for developing a
new model for use in clearly identified circumstances, where the theoretical and social contexts have been compellingly argued.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author! (s)

Thank you for the thorough revision and your response to my comments.
In its current form, the study is entirely acceptable and provides researchers with guidance on the model's potential applications and connections to other models.
Congratulations to the author(s)!

Regards: