Constructing the Concept of Student Well-Being within Indonesian Islamic Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.        1.        This article is interesting because it raises an important theme, Constructing the Concept of Student Well-being within Indonesian Islamic Higher Education. 

2.        The use of diction/terms in English still needs correction. In several places the author uses the term "Focus Group Discussion" [line 14, 293, 295, 359], the more appropriate term should be "Focused Group Discussion" because that is the standard in English for academic writing. In some places there are inconsistencies in writing, for example in one place [line 175] it is written: "Islamic higher education", in the next line [line 176] it is written "Islamic higher education". Why is it inconsistent?

3.        When providing references in the body of the text, the author does not once provide information about the page number referred to, can the author complete the reference with the page number? 

4.        Can the author prove on which page Lin & Yang (2021) discuss academic burn-out? Can the author indicate on which page the University of Wellington (2022) discusses the definition of student well-being, so that readers can cross-check easily and quickly? 

5.        The author [line 102] cites Zaidi (2021) regarding the concept of well-being, on which page does Zaidi discuss this? Then, why is the reference (in-note) written is not Zaidi but other sources?   The author [on lines 120-124] cites Kashdan and Biswas-Diener (2008) who discuss the dichotomy between hedonic and eudemonic perspectives, can the author indicate on which page the data was obtained? So that readers can cross-check quickly and accurately?

6.        This article is entitled: Constructing the Concept of Student Well-being within Indonesian Islamic Higher Education. However, in the conclusion, the author has not explicitly stated/formulated the construction of well-being built in Islamic Higher Learning in Indonesia. Can the author show it more explicitly?

7.        The writing of this article seems less systematic. The author starts with (1) introduction, (2) results, (3) discussions, (4) materials and methods, (5) conclusions. Why do methods only appear in the fourth section, which comes after results and discussions? This seems strange, because the methods should be explained first, and then the results and discussions. 

8.        Recommendations: This article needs major improvement.

The English still needs improvement

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback, we have revised the article responding to your feedback. 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Abstract states that New Zealand served as the benchmark for this study. It is not evident from the paper why New Zealand was chosen and according to which criteria New Zealand is the benchmark for this study.

The Abstract states that experts in Islamic education as well as students of Islamic higher education advocate the idea of well-being enriched by Islamic values. However, this claim is not obvious from the results presented in this paper. Therefore, it would be appropriate to either change the Abstract, or supplement the part of the paper that refers to that part. Focus groups are mentioned in the Abstract, and the text itself states that only 8 students participated in the research. It would also be useful to know how many total people participated in the focus groups. And how many groups there were.

I would suggest refining the goal in accordance with the presented results, and thus the theoretical framework, which should be clearer, more coherent and follow what is presented in the results. So, my opinion is that the goal does not match the results and that it has not been shown how the theoretical concepts have been examined by the research. Also, the sample is small, so it should be emphasized that these are not generally applicable results.

The paper rightly emphasizes the importance of understanding the notion of well-being. The notion of well-being as conceptualized by secular education thinkers is different from the notion offered by those who make religious teachings an important part of education. The paper, however, lacks clarity regarding the definition of the concept of well-being by experts in Islamic education. Namely, the paper investigates a concept that is not clearly defined.)

In chapter 2.1, which emphasizes well-being in higher education, it would be good to support the claims made with research.

The third perspective, chaironic, is not not sufficiently explained. The concept of well-being in higher education from a chaironic perspective, which gives space to the spiritual-transcendental dimension, is not clearly presented. (2.2.)

It is emphasized that numerous studies (152-154) examine how well-being is viewed from  an Islamic perspective, as a religion that does not pay attention only to physical well-being. No religion, however, pays attention only to physical well-being.)

Based on the experts’ perspective (3 experts), no clarity is visible regarding the promotion of spirituality, i.e. the chaironic perspective. All their proposals are more or less part of the concept of well-being, which is called secular in this paper.

Considering the students' perspective, the results are presented very generically. Again, the spiritual dimension that is the focus of the fundamental goal of this work is missing.

In chapter 2.2.1.1. the same sentence is repeated twice.

Some sentences have incorrect punctuation marks. For example:

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have revised the article based on your positive feedback. Thank you for your kind assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I commend the effort that the author put into improving and refining this paper.