Interventions to Improve Connectedness, Belonging, and Engagement in Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As for the abstract, I consider it to be solid and clearly presents the relevance of the study, its methodology and key findings. However, it could benefit from greater clarity in the presentation of variables (It is not entirely clear why certain approaches (behavioural and intrapersonal) were not significant. Were there methodological limitations or problems in implementation?) and results (It is mentioned that 11 of the 16 studies contributed to the meta-analysis. What were the exclusion criteria for the other five?), as well as a better definition of key terms.

The introduction is well-founded and adequately justifies the need for the study, convincingly establishes the importance of school connectedness, belonging, and engagement in students' academic and emotional lives. However, although the text mentions the differences between connectedness, belonging and engagement, the distinction remains somewhat blurred, and the structure could be improved to highlight more precisely how each construct is operationally differentiated in literature and in interventions. In addition, in the section Convergence of terms and operationalisation of constructs, it is mentioned that the terms are used interchangeably, but no specific example is provided of how this confusion affects the design and evaluation of interventions. I believe it would be useful to include a concrete case where an intervention has been labelled differently in different studies, affecting the interpretation of the results.

I should also point out that some sentences are long and could be rephrased for clarity. For example:

• Original: ‘Despite long-standing conceptual overlaps between connectedness, belonging, and engagement, no study has explicitly examined the differences and similarities in the characteristics of interventions targeting each of these constructs.’
• Suggestion: ‘Although these constructs have shown conceptual overlaps, no study has explicitly examined the differences and similarities in the characteristics of interventions targeting each of these constructs.’

Overall, the Methods section is sound and well-founded, but could benefit from clarification on the inclusion of studies, the handling of bias and the treatment of missing data (there is no mention of how incomplete data were treated in the included studies, which may affect the validity of the meta-analysis.). As for the rationale for the age range (11-18 years), this could explain why this age range was specifically chosen and whether there are significant differences in the effects of the interventions on younger vs. older adolescents. Regarding the definition of ‘school-based’ intervention, it is not clear whether hybrid interventions (school-family or school-community) were excluded and how this variability was handled in the analysis.

As for the results section, the wording is generally quite clear, but some of the wording could be improved to avoid ambiguities. In the screening methodology where it says: ‘After duplicates were removed, 3,131 abstracts remained for researcher screening’. It might be useful to specify the process of removing duplicates: was specific software used? This would improve the transparency of the process. Also in ‘Abstracts were ranked by their relevance to 8 seed articles identified through a preliminary literature search...’ you could briefly explain how these 8 seed articles were selected, as they are key in the selection of studies, or provide references to previous studies if this method has already been detailed elsewhere. In the paragraph where reviewer saturation is mentioned, it would be important to explain more explicitly what ‘saturation’ means in this context and how it was assessed. This would facilitate the understanding of the process for readers who are not familiar with the concept in a literature review context.

In terms of participants, more information could be provided on how ‘all eligible students’ were defined and whether there were any restrictions in terms of schooling or geographical context. Furthermore, the list of student groups (e.g. ‘students at risk of academic failure’) is clear, but it would be useful to specify whether these risk categories were determined by the researchers themselves or whether they were based on standardised criteria.

The discussion section offers a comprehensive analysis that provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of interventions to improve school connectedness, belonging and engagement. However, some areas, such as the interpretation of contradictory results and the alignment of theoretical and practical approaches, could benefit from further analysis. The recommendations for practice are useful, but I believe it would be beneficial to provide more concrete examples for educational practitioners.

Overall, the conclusions are clear and highlight the key findings of the review in a concise manner. However, they could benefit from more concreteness in the practical recommendations and greater clarity on how the three constructs of connectedness, belonging and engagement can be effectively integrated into school-based interventions. With these additions, the conclusion section would be even more robust and useful for readers.

The references are up to date and relevant to the subject of the article, and both scientific journal and book sources have been used.

In conclusion, I believe that the article makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of the effectiveness of school-based interventions aimed at improving secondary school students' connectedness, belonging and engagement. While the study is generally well-structured and comprehensive, there are areas where greater clarity and detail would enhance its impact. In particular, further explanation of the variables, methodology and distinctions between constructs would help readers to better understand the study's findings and their implications. In addition, addressing issues such as the treatment of missing data, the inclusion criteria for studies and providing more concrete examples for education professionals would strengthen the overall usefulness of the review. By refining these aspects, the article would offer even more practical ideas for improving the academic, social and emotional outcomes of secondary school students.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have found your suggestions to be helpful and believe your input has strengthen the paper. Please find the detailed responses in the word file uploaded and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This systematic review provides the first comprehensive synthesis of interventions designed to enhance school connectedness, belonging, and engagement, addressing significant gaps in the literature through the analysis of 16 RCT studies and a meta-analysis of 11 of them. The findings reveal moderate improvements across these constructs, highlighting the promise of evidence-based interventions in secondary schools.

The paper is well-written and structured, offering valuable insights to the field.

A minor recommendation relates to the conclusion, where the author argues that tailored approaches, considering cultural and demographic diversity, further enhance outcomes. This is an important point that may warrant further discussion in the discussion section. Specifically, it would be beneficial to explore whether the reviewed studies provide evidence of cultural change—an essential aspect of environmental-based techniques—and its impact on intervention effectiveness.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have found your suggestions to be helpful and believe your input has strengthen the paper. Please find the detailed responses in the word document attached and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of your manuscript entitled ‘Interventions to Improve Connectedness, Belonging and Engagement in Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ as well as the response letter to the reviewers.

I would like to congratulate you on the effort you have put into the review. You have clearly and thoroughly addressed the comments raised in the first round of review, and the changes you have made have greatly improved the clarity, methodological rigour and relevance of the work.