Enhanced Math Efficacy and Performance of Minority Students through Student Class Preparation and Teacher Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this research and the article to be well constructed and supported. Documentation is strong, and findings seem appropriate. Early parts of the literature review could benefit from more recent studies. 

I particularly appreciated the noting of limitations and recommendations for next steps. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the suggestions and revised as we provided detailed responses.

Reviewer 1

I found this research and the article to be well constructed and supported. Documentation is strong, and findings seem appropriate. Early parts of the literature review could benefit from more recent studies. 

• In response to the reviewer's suggestion, we added 12 recent references and incorporated them into introduction, literature review, and discussion.

I particularly appreciated the noting of limitations and recommendations for next steps. 

• Thank you for your comments. We have restructured the study's limitations, contributions, and conclusion within the discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. The research topic of the present study has been well-documented in the existing literature. The authors need to better point out their unique research contribution. Also, less recent literature was referenced. In addition, the authors conducted lots of analysis, but some are unnecessary, and some are unclear. Further details should be provided. See my detailed comments below.

Introduction:

1. Paragraph 3, in fact, there are lots of studies out there exploring the impact of teacher influence on students’ educational outcomes, like Bierman (2011), Gong et al. (2018), Redding (2019), Tai et al. (2012), etc. Therefore, the authors misstate the understudied topic, and the motivation of the present study should be better illustrated. Also, why authors focused on racial, linguistic, social, and gender backgrounds should be further explained. Is there existing literature showing significant differences in students’ math performance and self-efficacy among these groups? To my knowledge, lots of studies out there on race and gender disparities in math self-efficacy and performance in the U.S.

Literature review:

1. Line 89, “several research studies investigating the impact of math…”, which studies?

2. Line 102, need citations.

3. Overall, the authors reviewed racial disparities, and linguistic group differences, so where are gender, and social class disparities, since in the research questions, they stated that they looked at these groups. Also, the references seem old, only two references are after 2020 (Sandilos et al., 2020, Soland & Sandilos, 2021).

Methods:

1. The authors should report the final analytic sample size. Also, it is better to display these descriptive statistics in a table.

2. The authors developed a measurement model of SEM, however, they did not provide any model fit indices, so we do not know how the model fits the data well, thus losing statistical power. Also, the model that is conducted by CFA should be built upon theories and/or the existing literature, however, the authors fail to do so.

3. The authors said EFA was adopted. From their reported results, I would assume that they in fact just did factor analysis. If not, the authors need to provide more detailed results of EFA.  

4. NCES does provide generated math self-efficacy for its users. I am familiar with this dataset, and self-generated math self-efficacy yielded a better Cronbach’s alpha than NCES’s. Since the authors conducted the measurement model of SEM, I would like to suggest the authors explore their own math self-efficacy based on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory or SCCT.

5. Simple size (N) should be provided in Tables 2 and 3. Too many types of analysis are used to display the group difference, the chi-square difference test could be used in all compared groups (i.e., racial, linguistic, and gender)

Results:

1. use beta or B instead of estimate, since we do not know the authors reported standardized results or unstandardized results. p needs to be italic.

2. Figure 1. Analytical model of the study should not directly use the figure generated by the software. Also, what software did the authors use? Need to be clarified. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the suggestions and revised as we provided detailed responses.

Introduction:

1. Paragraph 3, in fact, there are lots of studies out there exploring the impact of teacher influence on students’ educational outcomes, like Bierman (2011), Gong et al. (2018), Redding (2019), Tai et al. (2012), etc. Therefore, the authors misstate the understudied topic, and the motivation of the present study should be better illustrated.

• In response to the reviewer's suggestion, we have restated the influence of teachers on students' outcomes in lines 24-26 and lines 36-39 on page 1. Additionally, we have incorporated new references as appear [2], [3], [6], [9], and [12].

2. Also, why authors focused on racial, linguistic, social, and gender backgrounds should be further explained. Is there existing literature showing significant differences in students’ math performance and self-efficacy among these groups? To my knowledge, lots of studies out there on race and gender disparities in math self-efficacy and performance in the U.S.

à   We have provided justification for the study's focus on outcomes for various student groups, including racial and linguistic minority groups, in Lines 47-51 and lines 60-61 on page 2.

Literature review:

3. Line 89, “several research studies investigating the impact of math…”, which studies?

à We added three citations: [12], [16], [17].

4. Line 102, need citations.

à We added two articles, [9] and [16] as the reviewer commented.

5. Overall, the authors reviewed racial disparities, and linguistic group differences, so where are gender, and social class disparities, since in the research questions, they stated that they looked at these groups. Also, the references seem old, only two references are after 2020 (Sandilos et al., 2020, Soland & Sandilos, 2021).

à In response to the reviewer's suggestion, we have updated the references pertaining to racial and linguistic disparities, gender disparities, and social class disparities in relation to self-efficacy and math performance outcomes. We have incorporated ten more recent studies and have indicated them with yellow highlights in the references section. 

Methods:

6. The authors should report the final analytic sample size. Also, it is better to display these descriptive statistics in a table.

• As recommended by the reviewer, we have included descriptive statistics and the final sample size in Table 4. Consequently, we have also adjusted the names of the subsequent tables accordingly.

7. The authors developed a measurement model of SEM, however, they did not provide any model fit indices, so we do not know how the model fits the data well, thus losing statistical power. Also, the model that is conducted by CFA should be built upon theories and/or the existing literature, however, the authors fail to do so.

à   As per the reviewer's suggestion, we have furnished references to support the theoretical backgrounds of two latent variables, namely, student class unpreparedness in Line 237-238 and teacher support in Line 251-252 on page 17.

• Additionally, we have provided the fit statistics for both the measurement and structural models, including Chi-Square, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR as fit indices in Table 5. We have also discussed the fit statistics in Lines 337-344 on pages 9-10.

8. The authors said EFA was adopted. From their reported results, I would assume that they in fact just did factor analysis. If not, the authors need to provide more detailed results of EFA.  

à   EFA analysis results were provided in Lines 243-248 on page and Table 1.

9. NCES does provide generated math self-efficacy for its users. I am familiar with this dataset, and self-generated math self-efficacy yielded a better Cronbach’s alpha than NCES’s. Since the authors conducted the measurement model of SEM, I would like to suggest the authors explore their own math self-efficacy based on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory or SCCT.

à   Our model includes two latent variables, each with three and five indicators serving as mediators, respectively. It's important to note that the focus of this study primarily revolves around these two latent variables, and the latent variable representing math self-efficacy is not the primary focus of our research. We appreciate the efforts of NCES researchers in developing this construct and find their work in establishing a reliable construct to be satisfactory. We believe that further refinements in this construct may not yield significant benefits, as the NCES-reported construct is already considered to be of good quality.

10. Simple size (N) should be provided in Tables 2 and 3. Too many types of analysis are used to display the group difference, the chi-square difference test could be used in all compared groups (i.e., racial, linguistic, and gender)

• The outcomes consist of scores for each exogenous and mediator variable, rather than frequency outcomes. It's important to note that Chi-square analysis should be applied exclusively to categorical or frequency outcomes.

Results:

11. use beta or B instead of estimate, since we do not know the authors reported standardized results or unstandardized results. p needs to be italic.

à We changed estimates to B. SEM results are standardized coefficients, not unstandardized coefficients. We italicized p.

12. Figure 1. Analytical model of the study should not directly use the figure generated by the software. Also, what software did the authors use? Need to be clarified. 

• We used Mplus for SEM model.
• The figure serves as a conceptual model, offering readers a simplified overview of the model. We opted for a table and text to present the coefficients, as opposed to including a figure filled with numerous numbers. This approach helps avoid redundancy in the information presented.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

l  The manuscript under consideration addresses topics of considerable interest and significance, particularly in the realm of education. The content merits the attention of educators and scholars alike.

l   In a broader context, the manuscript exhibits a commendable structural coherence, employing appropriate research methods and tools. The prose flows smoothly, reflecting the author's proficiency in presenting their research. However, before granting formal acceptance, the following comments and suggestions are offered for the author's thoughtful consideration:

l   Firstly, the findings and research methodologies employed in this study should be further summarized and elucidated. Such a comprehensive overview can accentuate the research's contributions and its inherent value.

l   Secondly, while reevaluating or discussing existing research findings is permissible, it is imperative to exercise restraint in this regard. Therefore, the primary recommendation is to refine the content of Chapter 5, refocusing its objectives and scope. 

l   Moreover, it is essential to meticulously review each reference, ensuring that they are not excessively reiterated or annotated within the manuscript. 

l   Additionally, it is imperative to inquire whether the study's limitations were adequately acknowledged at the outset. Thus, we encourage the authors to comprehensively assess the existing body of research to rectify this potential oversight.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

The manuscript under consideration addresses topics of considerable interest and significance, particularly in the realm of education. The content merits the attention of educators and scholars alike.

In a broader context, the manuscript exhibits a commendable structural coherence, employing appropriate research methods and tools. The prose flows smoothly, reflecting the author's proficiency in presenting their research. However, before granting formal acceptance, the following comments and suggestions are offered for the author's thoughtful consideration:

1. Firstly, the findings and research methodologies employed in this study should be further summarized and elucidated. Such a comprehensive overview can accentuate the research's contributions and its inherent value.

à As per the reviewer's suggestion, we have included summaries of the results in each section of the discussion. We have also refocused the discussion on the contributions, limitations, and conclusions of this study. Additionally, we have reintroduced our research questions in the discussion to aid readers in better understanding the study's findings.

2. Secondly, while reevaluating or discussing existing research findings is permissible, it is imperative to exercise restraint in this regard. Therefore, the primary recommendation is to refine the content of Chapter 5, refocusing its objectives and scope. 

• In line with the reviewer's recommendation, we have restructured the discussion by aligning it with our research questions and providing concise summaries of our findings for the two primary analyses.

3. Moreover, it is essential to meticulously review each reference, ensuring that they are not excessively reiterated or annotated within the manuscript. 

à We adhered to the practice of not referencing the same source in the literature review more than twice. Only five references were cited twice in the literature review. We have diligently revised the references to align with the format recommended by Education Sciences, incorporating an additional 12 recent references. We have also integrated these newly introduced references into our discussion.

4. l   Additionally, it is imperative to inquire whether the study's limitations were adequately acknowledged at the outset. Thus, we encourage the authors to comprehensively assess the existing body of research to rectify this potential oversight.

à Once more, we have reoriented the study's limitations, contributions, and conclusion within the discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript is improved, however, the references still seem old. The analytical model of the study should be better drawed.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort reviewing this manuscript. 

• In response to the reviewer's recommendations, we incorporated 9 more recent pieces of literature, supplementing the 12 articles updated in the previous revision. Consequently, we have thoroughly revised both the content and references throughout the manuscript.
• Moreover, following the reviewer's feedback, we improved our Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) by including significant coefficients within the model. The initial diagram generated by our SEM software proved to be unreadable. To enhance the visibility of the model and its significant pathways, we have created a new diagram, highlighting these significant coefficients.