Self-Concept Modulates Motivation and Learning Strategies in Higher Education: Comparison According to Sex

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review was prepared for the manuscript, Self-concept modulates motivation and learning strategies in higher education: comparison according to sex. I completed work in educational research conducted through survey methods and subsequent analyses. Therefore, this paper is of strong interest to me.   

Introduction:  
Consider further developing the sections at the beginning of the paper: Introduction, Literature Review, and Theoretical Framework. Include headers to organize these sections. These areas need to be further developed, especially the literature review, regarding the current work in this area of research. Similarly, have a separate section to discuss the Theoretical Framework in greater detail.  

Methods 

Section 2.2 is not in English.  

Section 2.3: The last sentence was cut off.  

Section 2.4: Provide a citation for the kurtosis value for the measure of normality.  

Results: Provide citations to support cutoff values for fitness indices. 

Discussion 

Consider discussing how universities can better support students. Provide insights from the literature on supporting students through the constructs discussed in the current study.  

Conclusion 

Speak about how the hypotheses were supported or not in the results section.  

Consider restructuring the conclusion section. Begin with the study's premise and how the research questions were approached. Then briefly discuss the research findings, how they apply to the larger research community, and possibly how universities could use this information to better support students.   

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I hope you are well. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article in order to improve its quality. I am forwarding all comments to you below, along with the manuscript:

Comments 1: [Introduction:  
Consider further developing the sections at the beginning of the paper: Introduction, Literature Review, and Theoretical Framework. Include headers to organize these sections. These areas need to be further developed, especially the literature review, regarding the current work in this area of research. Similarly, have a separate section to discuss the Theoretical Framework in greater detail. ]

Response 1: [Many thanks for your comments for improvement. The manuscript has been modified in all the aspects mentioned, from a reorganisation of the sections to the inclusion of a more elaborate introduction and theoretical framework].

Comments 2: [Methods ; Section 2.2 is not in English.  ; Section 2.3: The last sentence was cut off.  ; Section 2.4: Provide a citation for the kurtosis value for the measure of normality. ]

Response 2: [Thank you very much for your annotations. All the requested corrections have been made. In section 2.2. the text has been translated into English; in section 2.3. the missing part has been included; in section 4 the citations have been added in accordance with your request, thus improving the quality of the article.]Objectives and hypotheses [Thank you very much for your comments for improvement. The manuscript has been modified in all the aspects indicated, from a reorganisation of the sections to the inclusion of a more elaborate introduction and theoretical framework].

Comments 3: [Results: Provide citations to support cutoff values for fitness indices.]

Response 3: [Citations have been included as necessary to justify the index values].

Comments 4: [Discussion: Consider discussing how universities can better support students. Provide insights from the literature on supporting students through the constructs discussed in the current study.]

Response 4:  [Thank you very much for your comments. They have been taken into account in this section in order to improve the evidence and quality of the article].

Comments 5: [Conclusion: Speak about how the hypotheses were supported or not in the results section.  Consider restructuring the conclusion section. Begin with the study's premise and how the research questions were approached. Then briefly discuss the research findings, how they apply to the larger research community, and possibly how universities could use this information to better support students.]

Response 5: [Thank you for your comments. The conclusions have been considered and partially modified in order to improve the eligibility of this section].

Again, thank you very much for the constructive comments on the article. I hope that the changes made have improved the quality and eligibility of the work; changes are marked in red.

Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper quantitatively investigates the relationships among student self-concept, social-psychological needs, and learning strategies. The literature review is concise and effectively articulates the study rationale and also highlights the novelty of the research focus.

However, I was unable to provide a full evaluation of the manuscript due to the lack of accessible information regarding the survey instruments. Specifically, the subsection titled 2.2 Instruments, which appears to detail the tools used in the study, is written in Spanish. This is beyond my language proficiency. I recommend that the authors carefully review the manuscript to ensure that all sections are presented in the appropriate language for this journal. Without access to this key methodological information, I am unable to provide further feedback on the remaining sections of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear editor,

I hope you are well. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Sorry for the mishap, below, I am sending you the translated section, as well as some adjustments made; marked in red.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and clearly written article addressing an important topic in the field of higher education: the interrelations between self-concept, basic psychological needs, and learning strategies, with attention to gender differences. The use of SEM provides a sound analytical framework, and the sample size is appropriate. The article aligns well with the scope of Education Sciences, and the topic is timely and of broad interest.

However, several critical aspects should be improved to enhance the article’s analytical strength and its contribution to scholarship:

1. Analytical depth vs descriptive narrative:
   While the study is well presented, the discussion remains somewhat narrative and does not fully exploit the analytical potential of the SEM results. The article would benefit from a deeper analytical reflection on why certain associations emerged (or did not), in light of theoretical frameworks. Currently, some explanations seem anecdotal or speculative rather than rigorously grounded in theory.

2. Originality of contribution:
   The relationships between self-concept, motivation, and learning strategies are well-researched in the existing literature. The article's main value lies in the gender-comparative approach; however, this should be made more explicit. To strengthen originality, the authors should more clearly articulate what is novel in their model or findings compared to prior studies.

3. Transparency and data availability:
   The instruments and methods are well described, but the article lacks an explicit statement on data availability or the possibility for replication. For an empirical study of this scale, an open dataset or at least an assurance of data availability upon request would strengthen scientific transparency and trustworthiness.

4. Limitations and future research:
   The limitations section is somewhat short and does not fully explore the implications of the sampling method (non-probabilistic), or of potential biases in self-reported data. Furthermore, future research directions remain generic. The authors should specify more sharply how future studies could build upon these findings — for example, through longitudinal designs, interventions, or in different cultural contexts.

5. Conclusions and implications:
   The practical recommendations for university policy are sound but rather general. The authors could add value by specifying which types of institutional or curricular interventions would be most informed by their findings.

In sum, this is a potentially valuable contribution, but in its current form it still reads as somewhat descriptive and would benefit from a clearer articulation of its novelty, a more analytical discussion, stronger transparency on data availability, and more specific future directions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to sincerely thank you for the time you have dedicated and for the comments provided, which contribute significantly to enhancing the scientific rigour of the article, as well as improving its clarity for the reader or researcher.

 Comment 1: This is a well-structured and clearly written article addressing an important topic in the field of higher education: the interrelations between self-concept, basic psychological needs, and learning strategies, with attention to gender differences. The use of SEM provides a sound analytical framework, and the sample size is appropriate. The article aligns well with the scope of Education Sciences, and the topic is timely and of broad interest.

Response 1: We are most grateful for your positive assessment of the manuscript's structure, writing style, and thematic relevance, as well as for considering both the analyses conducted and the sample size employed to be appropriate. We also appreciate your recognition of the topic’s pertinence and its alignment with the focus of Education Sciences. This feedback encourages us to continue working rigorously on the analysis of key psychoeducational variables aimed at improving the formative experience of university students.

 

Comment 2: Analytical depth vs descriptive narrative: While the study is well presented, the discussion remains somewhat narrative and does not fully exploit the analytical potential of the SEM results. The article would benefit from a deeper analytical reflection on why certain associations emerged (or did not), in light of theoretical frameworks. Currently, some explanations seem anecdotal or speculative rather than rigorously grounded in theory.

 Response 2: Thank you very much for your observation. Following a critical reading and thorough revision of the corresponding section, we consider that the discussion has been appropriately addressed. Empirical studies have been incorporated which reinforce and confirm the findings obtained, thereby enabling a more robust and theoretically grounded interpretation, rather than a merely speculative one. These references provide consistency to the analysis of the associations observed (or not) in the SEM model and allow the results to be contextualised within the theoretical framework employed.

 

Comment 3: Originality of contribution: The relationships between self-concept, motivation, and learning strategies are well-researched in the existing literature. The article's main value lies in the gender-comparative approach; however, this should be made more explicit. To strengthen originality, the authors should more clearly articulate what is novel in their model or findings compared to prior studies.

 Response 3: Thank you very much for your comment. It has been duly considered and, accordingly, incorporated into the introduction section, specifically in the newly created subsection 1.2, entitled Aims and Hypotheses.

 

Comment 4: Transparency and data availability: The instruments and methods are well described, but the article lacks an explicit statement on data availability or the possibility for replication. For an empirical study of this scale, an open dataset or at least an assurance of data availability upon request would strengthen scientific transparency and trustworthiness.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your detailed observation. The nuance you highlighted has been incorporated into subsection 2.3, entitled Procedure.

 

Comment 5: Limitations and future research: The limitations section is somewhat short and does not fully explore the implications of the sampling method (non-probabilistic), or of potential biases in self-reported data. Furthermore, future research directions remain generic. The authors should specify more sharply how future studies could build upon these findings — for example, through longitudinal designs, interventions, or in different cultural contexts.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comments. These have been taken into consideration, and the relevant changes have already been incorporated into the manuscript.

 

Comment 6: Conclusions and implications: The practical recommendations for university policy are sound but rather general. The authors could add value by specifying which types of institutional or curricular interventions would be most informed by their findings.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your observations. They have been duly taken into account and, as a result, specific clarifications have been incorporated into several paragraphs of Subsection 4.1, complementing those already included.

I hope that the modifications made have improved the scientific rigour of the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of the paper. The following remarks are  intended to improve the theoretical framework:

1. The five dimensions of self-concept (mentioned in l. 137, 174ff) should be incorporated more extensivelyo the definition of the self-concept developed in lines 56ff.
2. The list of basic psychological needs differes between lines 95 and 185. Satisfaction and autonomy should not be used interchangeably. 
3. I suggest merging sections 2.1 and 2.3 as they both describe the design and methods of the study.
4. the following three are missing from the list of variables included in lines 248-250 : anxiety, goals and task value. This is assesed in comparison to the eight (in fact - nine) dimensions listed in lines 192-197. It should also be determined to what extent potential corrections in this matter may influence the theoretical framework of the study.

I'd be very grateful if the Authors could shortly address all my comments and queries listed above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am grateful for the comments provided, which significantly contribute to strengthening the scientific rigour of the manuscript. Below, I present the responses to each of the observations raised.

Comment 1: The five dimensions of self-concept (mentioned in l. 137, 174ff) should be incorporated more extensivelyo the definition of the self-concept developed in lines 56ff.

Response 1: The comment has been taken into account, and the definition of self-concept has been expanded to include its five dimensions, along with an explanation of each one.

Comment 2: The list of basic psychological needs differes between lines 95 and 185. Satisfaction and autonomy should not be used interchangeably.

 

Response 2: The paragraphs indicated by the reviewer, corresponding to lines 95 and 185 of the article, have been reviewed. We can confirm that the same dimensions of basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, are consistently maintained. Furthermore, line 185 has been updated to specify that the internal consistency of the scale is adequate. Additionally, after a thorough review of the relevant paragraphs, it has been verified that the terms satisfaction and autonomy are used distinctly and are not treated as synonyms.

 

Comment 3: I suggest merging sections 2.1 and 2.3 as they both describe the design and methods of the study.

Response 3: Subsection 2.1 addresses the study design and participants, whereas subsection 2.3 outlines the procedure followed to conduct the research. Although both fall under the Materials and Methods section, they refer to distinct aspects of the study. Therefore, it is advisable to keep subsections 2.1 and 2.3 separate in order to enhance the structure of the article and improve clarity for both readers and researchers.

 

Comment 4: the following three are missing from the list of variables included in lines 248-250 : anxiety, goals and task value. This is assesed in comparison to the eight (in fact - nine) dimensions listed in lines 192-197. It should also be determined to what extent potential corrections in this matter may influence the theoretical framework of the study.

Response 4: These three variables are linked to the anxiety component. In the present article, our focus is on the remaining variables, specifically the learning strategies. It is also worth noting that the scale used comprises various subscales (in this case, nine) which, although structured as dimensions within the instrument, can be employed independently.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for working to improve this manuscript. A few minor things need adjusting. Please see below.

Section 1's header should likely be Introduction. It is currently reading as Theoretical Framework Introduction. If section 1 is Introduction, 1.1 needs to be modified. 

The paragraph structure in section 1.2 is off. It looks like pieces have been added but are not in the correct format. They either need to be connected to the prior paragraph or indented. 

In section 3 on page 7 in the second full paragraph, Autonomy is capitalized, but it should be in lower case. 

Thank you for your work on the conclusion. It reads much better. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for acknowledging the effort made in revising the manuscript. Please find below the responses to the comments you kindly provided:

Comment 1: The heading of Section 1 should probably be "Introduction". It currently appears as "Theoretical Framework and Introduction". If Section 1 is to be the Introduction, then Subsection 1.1 should be amended accordingly.
Response 1: Thank you for your observation. The title of Section 1 has been revised to “Introduction” as suggested. In addition, what was previously Subsection 1.2 has now been relabelled as 1.1. The subsections within Section 1 have also been renumbered accordingly.

Comment 2: The paragraph structure in Section 1.2 is not correct. It seems that some fragments have been added without proper integration. These should either be connected to the preceding paragraph or correctly indented.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. Section 1.1 (previously 1.2) has now been revised to ensure proper indentation in all paragraphs and to improve the integration and coherence of the inserted fragments.

Comment 3: In Section 3, on page 7, in the second full paragraph, the word “Autonomy” appears with an initial capital letter, but it should be lowercase.
Response 3: The document has been carefully reviewed and the issue highlighted has been corrected.

Comment 4: Thank you for your work on the conclusion. It now reads much better.
Response 4: I sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on the conclusion. I am pleased to know that the revisions have helped to enhance its clarity and coherence.

Once again, thank you for your time and thoughtful suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to strengthening the scientific rigour of the manuscript.

Kind regards,