University Students’ Character Strengths and Their Impact on Quality Education in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript discusses how international teacher-education students in Hungary view and apply their character strengths, aligning with positive-psychology literature. The study emphasizes the importance of personal and moral development in quality education. However, it does not measure outcomes or establish causality, so the authors' claims about system-wide impact and policy change are hypotheses, not conclusions.

The manuscript is useful in emerging area with coherence between research questions, data, and conclusions, but contributions are primarily descriptive. It supports existing theory on positive effects of strengths rather than overturning it. Authors should clarify theoretical framing, strengthen methodological rigor, and perhaps temper over-generalizations to enhance scholarly value. This would make link between character strengths and higher-education quality more convincing and actionable.

To strengthen the manuscript, several key revisions are recommended. First, the theoretical framework needs clarification—specifically, how character strengths are conceptually linked to quality education. Employing a guiding model such as Positive Education or VIA’s Aware–Explore–Apply would enhance coherence.

The literature review lacks clear bridge between EU education policy and psychological constructs. Qualitative design is appropriate, but small sample size limits generalizability. Justification for excluding domestic students and more detail on analytic rigor is needed.

The findings need deeper analysis, including contradictions and more explanation of "top strengths". Overlapping themes could be consolidated, and speculative claims should match the data's scope. The discussion reflects student perceptions but occasionally overreaches. 

Finally, the manuscript would benefit from a formal limitations section, a clearer articulation of its novelty, and closer alignment with established literature on strengths-based education. Overall, the study offers valuable insights but requires refinement in theoretical grounding, methodological transparency, and analytical depth to fulfill its potential.

Well done and good luck!

Author Response

Comment 1. Clarification of the theoretical framework

Response 1. We appreciate this suggestion and agree that a clearer theoretical grounding
strengthens the manuscript. In the revised version, we incorporated the VIA’s Aware–
Explore–Apply (AEA) model to guide our conceptual framing. We also aligned this
with the Positive Education paradigm and relevant EU policy frameworks, such as
the Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. These additions enhance the coherence
and relevance of the theoretical foundation.

Comment 2.  Literature review

Response 2. We revised the literature review section to better connect EU education policy
frameworks—particularly regarding personal and moral development—with the
psychological constructs of character strengths and strengths-based education. This
establishes a clearer context for the study’s relevance within the European higher
education landscape.

Comment 3. Methodological concerns

Response 3. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns. However, we did not revise this section
because our sample consisted solely of international teacher-education students. Local
(domestic) students were not included in the study population and therefore were not
excluded by design. This focus aligns with the study's aim to explore the specific
perspectives of international students in Hungary. We believe the methodological
approach and justification provided are appropriate for the scope and purpose of the
study.

Comment 4. Findings need deeper analysis

Response 4. We revisited the analysis to reduce overlap between themes and provide a clearer
articulation of participants’ top character strengths. Additional interpretation was added to offer greater depth, and speculative claims were refined to align more closely
with the scope of the data.

Comment 5. Discussion

Response 5. We reviewed portions of the discussion to ensure that interpretations remain
grounded in participant data. We also clarified where statements reflect subjective
perceptions rather than generalizable conclusions.

Comment 6. Add a formal limitations section

Response 6. We added limitations to acknowledge the study’s boundaries, including sample size
and context, alongside recommendations, which emerged naturally from the findings
and discussion. Furthermore, we clarified the study’s contribution in relation to
existing strengths-based educational literature.

Thank you very much for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We hope these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the clarity,
coherence, and scholarly value of the manuscript. We sincerely thank you for your
time and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for trusting me to review your paper entitled “University Students’ Character Strengths and Their Impact on Quality Education in Higher Education”.

Your manuscript is a strong contribution to educational research, particularly in the context of character education and international student experience. The conceptual grounding, methodological rigor, and thematic clarity are commendable. However, minor revisions are necessary to strenghen your paper.

1. Please re-order subsections 2.2. and 2.3. You have to explain what is "character strenghts" and after this, you can add its integration in pedagogical frameworks.
2. I am of the opinion that you should merge Theme 2"Teacher-Student relationship" and Theme 4 "Conducive Learning Environment". I firmly believe that they significantly overlap and may confuse readers through redudancy.

I am sure that you will follow my recommendations and make your paper even stronger. Keep up the good work!

Author Response

Comment 1. Reorder Sections 2.2 and 2.3 in the Literature Review

Response 1. We have reordered subsections 2.2 and 2.3 to first explain the concept of character strengths before discussing their integration into pedagogical frameworks, as recommended. We also added more evidence from previous studies.

Comment 2. Merge Two Themes in the Findings

Response 2. We merged Theme 2 (“Teacher–Student Relationship”) and Theme 4 (“Conducive Learning Environment”) into a single, cohesive theme to reduce overlap and improve clarity.

Thank you very much for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. 

We hope these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the clarity, coherence, and scholarly value of the manuscript. We sincerely thank you for your time and consideration.