Addressing the Challenges of STEM Mature-Aged Students: Faculty Role in Promoting Sustainability and Well-Being in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Aspects for Improvement

Design and Results
The mixed-methods design is well described and justified. The results are presented in a structured way, with clear tables and figures. However, some graphs (e.g., Figure 1) could benefit from a more detailed description in the text. It is also suggested to explain the statistical analysis procedures more thoroughly (significance testing, effect sizes, instrument validation) to facilitate replicability and enhance understanding of the quantitative findings.

Language
The article is written in grammatically correct and academically appropriate English, but there are minor elements that could be improved.
Some sentences are overly long and redundant, and expressions such as “At the same time,” “In turn,” and “It should be noted that…” are used too frequently, reducing stylistic dynamism.
There are slight inconsistencies in the use of the and plural forms, for example in “mature-aged students well-being”, which should read “mature-aged students’ well-being.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review. Here are my comments:

Comment 1:
The mixed-methods design is well described and justified. The results are presented in a structured way, with clear tables and figures. However, some graphs (e.g., Figure 1) could benefit from a more detailed description in the text.

Answer 1: Done. Added text in p.12: 

Figure 1 presents the self-assessed well-being scores of mature-aged STEM students across five key dimensions. Among these, relational well-being received the highest average rating (Mean = 3.89), followed closely by academic well-being (Mean = 3.73), indicating that students generally feel supported by peers and faculty and experience a positive learning environment. Psychological resilience and well-being showed a moderate rating (Mean = 3.21), whereas financial well-being (Mean = 3.13) and particularly physical well-being (Mean = 2.59) were rated the lowest, reflecting significant challenges in managing financial stress and physical demands.

Comment 2: It is also suggested to explain the statistical analysis procedures more thoroughly (significance testing, effect sizes, instrument validation) to facilitate replicability and enhance understanding of the quantitative findings.

Answer 2: Done. Added text in p. 15.

We applied Pearson’s chi-square test for independence (χ²) to categorical variables, comparing proportions of high (4–5) and low (0–1) endorsement across groups. These tests help determine whether observed differences in endorsement levels are likely due to chance. The significance level was set at α = 0.05, with p-values < .05 considered statistically significant and p < .001 interpreted as highly significant.

Effect sizes were not calculated in this exploratory study due to the relatively small sample size in subgroups (e.g., college-level n = 12). Future research with a larger sample will enable the use of effect size metrics such as Cramér’s V or odds ratios to assess the magnitude of observed differences.

Instrument validation included a pilot test of the survey with a small group of mature-aged students to ensure clarity and relevance.

Comment 3:
The article is written in grammatically correct and academically appropriate English, but there are minor elements that could be improved.
Some sentences are overly long and redundant, and expressions such as “At the same time,” “In turn,” and “It should be noted that…” are used too frequently, reducing stylistic dynamism.
There are slight inconsistencies in the use of the and plural forms, for example in “mature-aged students well-being”, which should read “mature-aged students’ well-being.”

Answer 3: done.  The article is also submitted for language editing. 

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. General Overview
The manuscript presents a comprehensive study addressing the challenges of mature-aged STEM students and the role of faculty in promoting student well-being and sustainability in higher education. The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the context of growing demand for STEM graduates, demographic shifts, and the increasing inclusion of mature-aged students in higher education. The study effectively integrates literature review, survey data, and semi-structured interviews to provide a nuanced understanding of mature students’ experiences.

Strengths:

• Clear articulation of research aims and questions, linking mature-aged student well-being to sustainability goals (SDG 3 and SDG 4).

• Well-structured mixed-methods design, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews, with triangulation to enhance credibility.

• Comprehensive literature review that clearly delineates well-being dimensions (academic, financial, physical, psychological resilience, relational) and identifies gaps in current research.

• Thoughtful discussion on the role of faculty across multiple dimensions, including relational, academic, and inclusive teaching practices.

• Integration of sustainability in STEM curricula is a novel angle that connects student well-being to societal impact.

2. Methodology

• The methodology is clearly described, and ethical approval is documented.

• The rationale for the selection of the survey and interview sample sizes is explained and justified based on exploratory research and qualitative depth requirements.

• Use of PRISMA guidelines in literature review strengthens methodological transparency.

• Triangulation of survey and interview data adds robustness to findings.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• The survey sample size of 119 (10% of target population) is acceptable for exploratory analysis, but the limited response rate and geographic focus (single university) should be emphasised more explicitly as a limitation to generalisability.

• Consider discussing potential biases in self-reported well-being and the effect of online survey administration on response quality.

• Clarify how the 11 indicators used in the final analysis were selected from the full survey; a brief explanation of selection criteria would enhance transparency.

3. Results and Discussion

• The results are presented clearly, with descriptive statistics that highlight differences among well-being dimensions.

• The analysis correctly identifies areas where faculty influence is most significant (relational and academic well-being).

• The discussion effectively links findings to literature and the practical implications for faculty.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• While the descriptive statistics are informative, consider including inferential statistics or correlations to strengthen claims about faculty influence.

• Some sections in the results could be more concise to improve readability; for instance, Figure 1 description and explanation of variability could be streamlined.

• The discussion of financial and physical well-being could include more concrete faculty interventions or institutional strategies, not just general observations.

4. Literature Review

• Well-organised and comprehensive, linking mature-aged student characteristics to specific challenges in STEM education.

• Strong theoretical grounding in student well-being dimensions and the connection to sustainability.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Some references are very recent (2025) which is commendable, but ensure all references are correctly formatted and accessible to readers.

• Consider briefly highlighting comparative insights from other countries beyond Latvia to strengthen the global relevance.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

• The conclusions align with the research objectives and clearly articulate the role of faculty in supporting mature-aged STEM students.

• Recommendations are practical and actionable.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Include a section on implications for policy and institutional practices to extend the study’s impact beyond faculty-level recommendations.

• Highlight possible avenues for future research, including longitudinal studies and inclusion of faculty perspectives, which were noted as a limitation.

6. Minor Suggestions

• Ensure consistent formatting of tables, figures, and headings.

• Some sentences are long and could be broken down for clarity and readability.

• Check grammar and punctuation for minor inconsistencies (e.g., “mature-age” vs. “mature-aged”).

Overall Assessment:
The manuscript is well-written, methodologically sound, and addresses a timely and relevant issue in higher education. With minor clarifications and enhancements, particularly around sample limitations, indicator selection, and actionable recommendations, it has strong potential for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a generally high level of English proficiency, with clear and coherent expression of ideas. The authors convey complex concepts related to mature-aged STEM students, well-being, and sustainability in higher education in a logical and structured manner. The writing is formal and appropriate for an academic journal, and the text maintains consistent use of discipline-specific terminology.

Strengths:

1. Clarity and Structure: The abstract and introduction are well-organized, providing a clear overview of the research aim, objectives, and context. The methodology section is detailed and precise, which enhances readability and transparency.

2. Use of Academic Language: The manuscript effectively uses formal academic language, including appropriate verbs, nouns, and connectors that support argumentation (e.g., "analyses," "emphasises," "aligning with established qualitative research practices").

3. Consistency of Terminology: Key concepts such as “mature-aged students,” “well-being,” “sustainability,” and “faculty support” are consistently defined and applied throughout the manuscript.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Sentence Length and Complexity: Some sentences are very long and complex, which may occasionally reduce readability. Breaking up lengthy sentences into two or more shorter sentences would improve clarity. Example (line 7–11 of the abstract): consider splitting the sentence beginning “Growing demand for STEM graduates…” into two.

2. Minor Grammar and Punctuation Issues:

   • Occasional missing commas or unnecessary hyphenation (e.g., “non-linear” is fine, but check context for consistency).

   • Minor agreement issues, e.g., "researchers suggests" → should be "research suggests" if referring to a collective noun.

3. Word Choice and Redundancy: Certain phrases are slightly repetitive or could be simplified without losing meaning (e.g., “creating a risk of dropping out” appears multiple times; could vary phrasing).

4. Consistency in Spelling: Ensure uniform use of British vs. American English (e.g., “emphasises” vs. “emphasizes”). This seems mostly consistent, but a final check is recommended.

5. Flow Between Sections: While the manuscript is well-organized, transitions between some paragraphs could be smoother, especially when moving between discussion of well-being dimensions. Linking sentences could help the reader follow the argument more seamlessly.

Overall Assessment:
The manuscript’s English is of a high academic standard and communicates complex research effectively. With minor revisions to sentence length, punctuation, and occasional word choice, the readability and impact of the manuscript can be further enhanced. No major linguistic issues were noted that would impede understanding.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. 

Comment 1: The survey sample size of 119 (10% of target population) is acceptable for exploratory analysis, but the limited response rate and geographic focus (single university) should be emphasised more explicitly as a limitation to generalisability.

Answer 1: Done. See p.3. First, the survey sample included 119 mature-aged STEM students from Riga Technical University (RTU), representing approximately 10% of the target population. While acceptable for exploratory purposes, the limited response rate and the single-institution, single-country focus significantly constrain the generalisability of the quantitative findings to other higher education contexts or national systems. Additionally, as the survey relied on self-reported measures of well-being, there is a risk of response bias, including social desirability and recall bias. The use of an online survey format may have further influenced response quality, particularly for participants with limited digital skills or lower engagement, potentially skewing results toward more confident or motivated students

Comment 2: Consider discussing potential biases in self-reported well-being and the effect of online survey administration on response quality.

Answer 2: Done. See p.3. First, the survey sample included 119 mature-aged STEM students from Riga Technical University (RTU), representing approximately 10% of the target population. While acceptable for exploratory purposes, the limited response rate and the single-institution, single-country focus significantly constrain the generalisability of the quantitative findings to other higher education contexts or national systems. Additionally, as the survey relied on self-reported measures of well-being, there is a risk of response bias, including social desirability and recall bias. The use of an online survey format may have further influenced response quality, particularly for participants with limited digital skills or lower engagement, potentially skewing results toward more confident or motivated students

Comment 3: Clarify how the 11 indicators used in the final analysis were selected from the full survey; a brief explanation of selection criteria would enhance transparency.

Answer 3: Done. See p. 13. For the purposes of this article, we analysed a subset of 11 indicators from the full survey dataset (see Table 3). These were selected based on their direct relevance to the research question: “To what extent does the faculty influence the dimensions of well-being of mature-aged STEM students?” The selection was guided by both theoretical alignment with the five well-being dimensions (academic, relational, financial, psychological, and physical) and empirical considerations - such as response variability and clarity of interpretation. Indicators not directly related to faculty interaction or institutional climate were excluded from the final analysis to maintain analytical focus.

Comment 4: While the descriptive statistics are informative, consider including inferential statistics or correlations to strengthen claims about faculty influence.

Answer 4: Done. See p.14. While this study relies on descriptive statistics to present exploratory findings, inferential analyses and correlation testing are intentionally not included in this article, as they fall outside its qualitative-comparative and conceptual scope. These avenues will be explored in future research to deepen understanding of causal relationships. 

Comment 5: Some sections in the results could be more concise to improve readability; for instance, Figure 1 description and explanation of variability could be streamlined.

Answer 5: Done. See p. 12-13. 

Figure 1 presents the self-assessed well-being scores of mature-aged STEM students across five key dimensions. Among these, relational well-being received the highest average rating (Mean = 3.89), followed closely by academic well-being (Mean = 3.73), indicating that students generally feel supported by peers and faculty and experience a positive learning environment. Psychological resilience and well-being showed a moderate rating (Mean = 3.21), whereas financial well-being (Mean = 3.13) and particularly physical well-being (Mean = 2.59) were rated the lowest, reflecting significant challenges in managing financial stress and physical demands.

The figure also reveals the variation in responses across dimensions. The widest range of responses occurred in the domain of financial well-being (from 2.04 to 3.6), highlighting stark disparities in students’ financial situations. In contrast, physical well-being had the narrowest spread (from 2.43 to 2.72), suggesting a more uniformly shared struggle among respondents. These findings underscore the need for targeted institutional and policy-level interventions that not only address academic and relational needs but also more effectively mitigate financial and physical burdens.

Commnet 6: The discussion of financial and physical well-being could include more concrete faculty interventions or institutional strategies, not just general observations.

Answer 6: Done. See p. 14-15.

However, the findings also reveal potential areas for improvement, particularly regarding physical and psychological well-being. The low scores for physical fatigue (Mean = 2.65) and the impact of academic workload on sleep (Mean = 2.54) highlight the need for better workload management. Faculty can support physical well-being by coordinating deadlines, spacing assessments, and offering limited flexible extensions. At the institutional level, predictable timetables, well-being hours, and access to telehealth or ergonomic infrastructure can further reduce physical strain. In terms of psychological resilience, students report a moderate ability to cope with academic stress (Mean = 3.29), yet also acknowledge that academic demands affect their mental well-being (Mean = 2.83), suggesting a need for more supportive and inclusive teaching approaches. Financial well-being remains an area of concern (Mean = 3.37), where faculty influence is often indirect but nonetheless important. Faculty can support financial well-being by adopting open educational resources (OER) to minimise textbook costs, designing coursework that does not require costly materials, and promoting low-cost or no-cost extracurricular academic opportunities. Additionally, institutions can provide structured financial literacy sessions within study programmes, introduce micro-grants for academic-related emergencies, and establish employer co-financing agreements for working students. These measures, though not solely within faculty control, can be strengthened by faculty advocacy and integration into programme-level planning.

Comment 7: Some references are very recent (2025), which is commendable, but ensure all references are correctly formatted and accessible to readers.

Answer 7: Done. The manuscript is also submitted for language editing. 

Comment 8: Consider briefly highlighting comparative insights from other countries beyond Latvia to strengthen the global relevance.

Answer 8: Done. See p. 7. 

2.2 Literature Review

The literature review was conducted with a global perspective, incorporating studies from diverse educational contexts - including the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and the EU - to highlight both universal challenges and region-specific strategies in supporting mature-aged students in STEM higher education. This broader approach strengthens the international relevance of the study and situates the Latvian case within a comparative global framework.

Comment 9: Include a section on implications for policy and institutional practices to extend the study’s impact beyond faculty-level recommendations.

Answer 9: Addressed. See p. 19. While this article primarily focuses on faculty-level influences and immediate institutional practices, broader implications for national policy and systemic reform - such as funding models, adult learning frameworks, and regulatory benchmarks - will be explored in subsequent publications. These future analyses aim to extend the current insights by proposing multi-level interventions that align institutional support with national policy strategies to enhance the success and well-being of mature-aged STEM students.

Comment 10: Highlight possible avenues for future research, including longitudinal studies and inclusion of faculty perspectives, which were noted as a limitation.

Answer 10: Done. See p. 19.

Building on the current findings, future research should explore longitudinal approaches to better understand how well-being dynamics evolve over time for mature-aged students in STEM. Incorporating faculty perspectives would also offer a more comprehensive view of how teaching practices, institutional culture, and educator support shape student well-being. Comparative studies across multiple institutions and countries could further strengthen the generalisability and policy relevance of the findings.

Comment 11: Ensure consistent formatting of tables, figures, and headings.

Answer 11: Addressed. The manuscript is also submitted for editing. 

Comment 12: Some sentences are long and could be broken down for clarity and readability.

Answer 12: Addressed. The manuscript is also submitted for editing. 

Comment 13: Check grammar and punctuation for minor inconsistencies (e.g., “mature-age” vs. “mature-aged”).

Answer 13: Addressed. The manuscript is also submitted for editing. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary
The manuscript examines the specific challenges and well-being needs of mature-aged students enrolled in STEM programs, and the crucial role of instructors in supporting these dimensions of well-being to promote sustainability in higher education. The main contribution lies in a combination of literature review, survey research, and qualitative interviews, showing how instructor support positively influences the academic and relational well-being of these students, while also identifying areas for improvement, particularly regarding physical, psychological, and financial well-being.

Comments
•    The literature review is comprehensive, up-to-date (2019–2025), and highly relevant to the topic. The technical and conceptual scientific review is thorough and consistently supports the argument. 
•    The knowledge gap is clearly identified, namely the role of instructors in supporting the well-being of adult STEM students for sustainability. The research questions are clear and significant both educationally and scientifically.
•    The hypothesis is testable and supported by well-integrated mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative).
•    The conceptual framework is clear and well-defined, with an appropriate focus on the specific population of adult STEM students.
•    The methodology is adequate, with a representative survey sample and in-depth interviews, although limited to a single institution and a small number of interviewees, which has implications for generalizability. It is suggested that future studies include multiple institutions and incorporate the perspective of the teaching staff.

Suggestions
•    Sample size justification (p.4): It would be helpful to clarify whether the 119 students are those who actually responded to the questionnaire. This likely does not affect the validity of the sample much, but stating this explicitly would clarify that the students who responded are the more active among the 1,228.
•    I suggest, based on experience, that future research aim to interview as many students as possible (Sample size justification, p.5).
•    Table 1: I would briefly comment on the table and add a bracket in the last column.
•    Table 2: Line three, last column, delete the final dot.
•    I would suggest to change “authors” to “we” (p.7, p.9), as “authors” feels somewhat distant.

Thanks for addressing this topic, which touches me personally in many ways.

Keep following your path! Well done!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

Comment 1: Sample size justification (p.4): It would be helpful to clarify whether the 119 students are those who actually responded to the questionnaire. This likely does not affect the validity of the sample much, but stating this explicitly would clarify that the students who responded are the more active among the 1,228.

Answer 1: Addressed. See p. 3. First, the survey sample included 119 mature-aged STEM students from Riga Technical University (RTU), representing approximately 10% of the target population. While acceptable for exploratory purposes, the limited response rate and the single-institution, single-country focus significantly constrain the generalisability of the quantitative findings to other higher education contexts or national systems. Additionally, as the survey relied on self-reported measures of well-being, there is a risk of response bias, including social desirability and recall bias. The use of an online survey format may have further influenced response quality, particularly for participants with limited digital skills or lower engagement, potentially skewing results toward more confident or motivated students. 

Comment 2: I suggest, based on experience, that future research aim to interview as many students as possible (Sample size justification, p.5).

Answer 2: Addressed. See p. 5. Nonetheless, future research could benefit from expanding the number of interviewees to further enrich the data and increase representativeness across different profiles of mature-aged students.

Comment 3: Table 1: I would briefly comment on the table and add a bracket in the last column.

Answer 3: Done. See p. 5-6. 

Table 1 presents the selection criteria for semi-structured interview participants, capturing a diverse sample of six mature-aged STEM students based on gender, age, study level (Bachelor or Master), previous academic experience, employment status, and funding source. All respondents had prior study experience, with varied occupations - ranging from unemployed to full-time and self-employed - and a mix of public and private funding. This diversity was intended to ensure representation of different life circumstances and study contexts.

Comment 4: Line three, last column, delete the final dot.

Answer: Done. See p. 6. 

Comment 5: I would suggest changing “authors” to “we” (p.7, p.9), as “authors” feels somewhat distant.

Answer 5: Done. Changed in the whole manuscript.

Thank you for your support!