Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a highly topical and relevant issue, the development of 21st-century skills among students with learning difficulties, and provides valuable data on certain educational aspects. However, the article requires significant improvements in methodological clarity and the precision of the statistical analysis.

The title could be improved by specifying the geographical or cultural context of the study. Since the data were collected from students in Israel, I suggest clarifying this aspect in the title.

The theoretical part provides a solid and well-argued framework for 21st century skills and the specific challenges of students with learning disabilities (LD). However, some points in the theoretical section are repeated. Consider reorganizing the ideas and removing redundancies to improve clarity and make the narrative flow more smoothly.

Regarding the objectives in the introduction, I noticed that in the current form of the article, the objectives of the study seem to overlap at certain points, especially the first and third objectives. In order to clarify the intentions of the study and avoid repetition, I propose the following reformulation of the three objectives:

1) Differences in 21st-Century Skills Between Groups: To examine self-reported 21st-century skills among students with learning disabilities (LD) compared to their typical peers, and to explore how these differences manifest in first-year versus upper-year students (second year and beyond).

2) Predictors of 21st-Century Skills: To investigate how personal characteristics (gender, age), learner type (LD vs. typical), socioeconomic background (mother’s education and family income), and employment status predict each of the eight 21st-century skills across these student groups.

3) Evolution of Skill Gaps Across Academic Stages: To explore how the gaps in 21st-century skills between students with LD and their typical peers change from first-year to upper-year students, assessing whether these differences widen, narrow, or remain stable as students progress academically.

Section ”1.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses” requires some adjustment.

The methodology is described correctly; however, the cross-sectional design is not very suitable for drawing conclusions regarding causality.

The instruments used are relevant to the study’s objectives, but clarification regarding cultural adaptation (CFA) is missing.

The statistical analysis is generally adequate, but some statistics are missing: SE and p-values, which are necessary to determine whether the observed effect is real or due to chance.

The authors are commended for tackling an important and timely topic. With the suggested improvements, this work could offer even greater value to researchers and educational systems.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an important and timely topic, exploring predictors of 21st-century skills among students with and without learning disabilities in Israeli higher education. The study is clearly structured and supported by a large sample and solid statistical analyses.

However, several aspects could be improved to enhance the paper’s theoretical and interpretative strength:

• The literature review would benefit from a more critical synthesis rather than a descriptive compilation. Consider situating Margalit’s model within contemporary socio-ecological and inclusive education frameworks.

• The hypotheses are somewhat self-evident and could be reframed to test more nuanced relationships (e.g. moderation by SES, mediation by self-efficacy).

• Results are clear but the discussion remains largely descriptive. Deepening the interpretation of the weak effect sizes and their implications for higher education practice would strengthen the argument.

• Consider reducing redundancy and improving stylistic fluency to make the English more concise and academic.

• Finally, link the implications more explicitly to institutional strategies for inclusion and skill development in post-secondary settings.

Overall, the manuscript has strong potential but would benefit from a major revision focused on theoretical sharpening and interpretative depth.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the article demonstrates notable improvement. The results analysis offers valuable contributions for researchers and practitioners interested in advancing the educational system. 

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised version demonstrates clear and substantial progress. The article is now well-structured, coherent, and scientifically robust. The theoretical framework is clearly articulated, combining the NRC model and Margalit’s holistic approach in a convincing way. The research questions and hypotheses are explicitly stated, and the statistical analyses (MANOVA, hierarchical regressions, Wald test) are rigorous and appropriately used.

The results make an original empirical contribution to the study of 21st-century skills among students with learning disabilities in Israeli higher education—a population and context that remain under-researched. The discussion is well balanced and connects the findings to wider issues of social mobility, inclusion, and higher-education policy.

Minor points for improvement concern mainly the form and concision rather than substance:

• The theoretical background could be slightly condensed to give more room to the results and implications.

• The English language is clear overall but could benefit from light editing to smooth transitions and article use.

• The conclusion could distinguish more clearly between practical implications for higher-education institutions and directions for future research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see above 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, “Predictors of 21st-Century Skills in Post-Secondary Students.” We are grateful for the positive evaluation of the manuscript’s quality and contribution. Below are the second reviewer’s comments and our detailed responses.

Reviewer Comment 1:
“The theoretical background could be slightly condensed to give more room to the results and implications.”

Response:
The theoretical background was slightly condensed to improve the balance between the conceptual framework and the results and implications sections. Redundant sentences were removed, and transitions were refined to maintain clarity and focus.

Reviewer Comment 2:
“The English language is clear overall but could benefit from light editing to smooth transitions and article use.”

Response:
Minor edits were made throughout the manuscript to enhance fluency, precision, and article use while retaining the formal academic tone.

Reviewer Comment 3:
“The conclusion could distinguish more clearly between practical implications for higher-education institutions and directions for future research.”

Response:
The conclusion was revised to clearly distinguish between practical implications for higher-education institutions and directions for future research. The implications now emphasise institutional practices such as cultivating cognitive and intrapersonal skills and diversifying assessment modalities. The limitations section was renamed “Limitations and Directions for Future Research” and now focuses on methodological and conceptual directions for subsequent studies.

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback, which contributed to a clearer and more concise manuscript.

Sincerely,