Exploring the Effect of Informedness About the EU on Instrumentality-Promotion Motivation to Use English in Croatian and Serbian Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to its subject matter, the comparative empirical data it presents and its attempt to link two areas of research, the manuscript has genuine publication potential. However, it requires substantial revision in its current form. The main comments are as follows:
1. A clearly integrated theoretical framework is lacking. Although the authors successfully bring together two important areas - motivation for language learning and knowledge of the EU - they do not adequately explain the relationship between self-perceived EU-informedness and instrumentality-promotion motivation. The theoretical background reads more like a parallel overview than a coherent explanatory framework.
2. The correlations identified between EU-informedness and instrumentality-promotion motivation are statistically significant but generally weak. While the authors acknowledge this to some extent, the discussion and conclusions sometimes overemphasise these findings. Effect sizes should be reported more clearly, and the interpretation of the results should be proportionate to the strength of the data.
3. The text does not sufficiently clarify the relationship between self-perceived EU-informedness and actual EU knowledge. This is important because the authors draw relatively far-reaching conclusions about inequalities in access to knowledge and possible programme reforms based on this relationship. Greater interpretive caution is needed here.
4. The method should be operationalised and described more clearly. Specifically, the manuscript should explain what the scales measure, how they were adapted and what the reliability and validity indicators are for this specific sample. While the current description provides a general outline, it remains too brief.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the English is generally clear, the manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading. Substantial rewriting is not required, but the text should be corrected for stylistic infelicities and minor ambiguities, and editorial inconsistencies and citations should be tidied up.

Author Response

Comment 1:

A clearly integrated theoretical framework is lacking…

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the initial version lacked a clearly integrated theoretical framework.

In the revised manuscript, we have substantially restructured the theoretical background to explicitly connect instrumentality-promotion motivation with self-perceived EU informedness within a unified framework.

Specifically, we have:

• introduced the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) as the core framework (Section 2.1)
• conceptualised EU informedness as a contextual and mediating factor shaping perceived opportunities (end of Section 2.1)
• added a new subsection “2.3. Equity, Inclusion, and Institutional Barriers in Higher Education”, which provides a structural explanation of how access to EU-related knowledge may influence motivation
• included an explicit assumption linking the two constructs in the Introduction

These revisions transform the literature review from a parallel overview into a coherent explanatory framework. Location of the improvements: 

• Introduction (assumption before RQs)
• Section 2.1 (final paragraph – conceptual link)
• Section 2.3 (new theoretical integration)

Comment 2:

Correlations are weak and sometimes overemphasised…

Thank you for this observation. We agree and have revised the manuscript to ensure that the interpretation is proportionate to the strength of the data.

In the revised version, we have:

• consistently reported effect sizes (e.g., Kendall’s τb, r values for Mann–Whitney tests)
• explicitly described correlations as weak throughout the Results and Discussion
• added a hierarchical regression analysis to test robustness, which showed limited explanatory power
• revised the Discussion and Conclusions to avoid overinterpretation and emphasise the modest and selective nature of the associations

These changes ensure a more cautious and statistically appropriate interpretation. Location of improvements:

• Results section (effect sizes and detailed reporting)
• Section 3.2 Data Analysis (analytical transparency)
• Discussion (RQ1 – emphasis on weak/selective relationships)
• Regression results (Discussion)

Comment 3:

Insufficient distinction between self-perceived and actual EU knowledge…

Thank you for highlighting this important issue. We agree that clearer differentiation was needed.

In the revised manuscript, we have:

• consistently clarified that the study measures self-perceived EU informedness, not objective knowledge
• revised interpretations to reflect perceived access and perceived knowledge, rather than making claims about actual knowledge inequalities
• added explicit caution in the Discussion and Conclusions regarding interpretive limitations

These revisions ensure that conclusions remain aligned with the nature of the data. Location of improvements: 

• Methodology (definition of InfoEU scale)
• Discussion (RQ2 – explicit clarification)
• Conclusions (interpretive caution)

Comment 4:

Methodology should be more clearly operationalised…

Thank you for this suggestion. We have substantially expanded the methodology section to improve clarity and transparency.

In the revised manuscript, we have:

• provided a detailed description of all instruments, including item structure and theoretical origin (IPro, InfoEU)
• explained scale adaptation procedures (IPro derived from L2MSS and adapted for post-pandemic context)
• reported reliability indicators (Cronbach’s alpha) for both scales
• included corrected item–total correlations
• added exploratory factor analysis results (KMO, Bartlett test, variance explained, factor loadings)
• clarified data analysis procedures and justification for non-parametric methods

These additions ensure that the study meets standards of methodological transparency and rigor. Location: 

• Section 3 Materials and Methods
• Section 3.2 Data Collection and Analysis
• Table 1 (factor analysis indicators)

 

 The English language used in the manuscript was improved, sentences shortened and academic style is now consistent throughout the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic at the intersection of European civic education, language learning motivation, and higher education in the Western Balkans. The focus on the relationship between EU-informedness and instrumentality-promotion motivation in learning English is conceptually interesting and has potential relevance for both educational policy and practice. However, the manuscript requires substantial revision to meet the standards of an international academic journal.

First, the theoretical framework is underdeveloped. While the study references instrumentality-promotion motivation, it does not sufficiently engage with established models such as the L2 Motivational Self System or broader theories of second language acquisition motivation. Additionally, the construct of “EU-informedness” is insufficiently conceptualized and operationalized. The authors should clearly define this concept, justify its dimensions (e.g., geographic, demographic), and situate it within prior literature. Second, the research design lacks clarity and rigor. The manuscript does not explicitly formulate research questions or hypotheses, which should be clearly stated and aligned with the theoretical framework. The methodology section requires more detail, including sampling procedures, participant characteristics, instrument design (e.g., validation, reliability measures such as Cronbach’s alpha), and data analysis techniques. Providing this information is essential for evaluating the validity and reliability of the findings. Third, sample size and representativeness raise concerns. The study includes 141 students from Croatian and Serbian universities, but the sampling strategy is not explained. It is unclear whether the sample is representative or sufficient for generalization. The authors should discuss limitations related to sample size, regional specificity, and potential sampling biases. Fourth, the presentation of results is primarily descriptive and lacks analytical depth. While correlations are reported, the statistical analysis is insufficiently detailed. Full reporting (e.g., correlation coefficients, significance levels, effect sizes) should be included, and more robust analytical methods should be considered if appropriate. The use of tables or figures could improve clarity. Fifth, the discussion section is relatively weak and insufficiently critical. The authors tend to restate results rather than interpret them in relation to existing research. A deeper comparative discussion is needed, particularly regarding differences between Croatian and Serbian students and the broader socio-political and educational context. Sixth, the policy implications are overstated given the limited empirical evidence. While recommendations for HEIs to reconsider civic and European dimension education (EDE) policies are interesting, they should be cautiously framed and better supported by the data. Finally, language and style require improvement. Issues with clarity, phrasing, and academic tone are present. Professional language editing is recommended to enhance readability and precision.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable, but the English language requires improvement to meet the standards of an international academic journal. Several issues affect clarity and readability, including awkward phrasing, inconsistent terminology, and occasional grammatical errors. Sentence structure could be refined to enhance precision and flow, and the academic tone should be made more formal and consistent throughout. Professional language editing is recommended to improve readability, accuracy, and overall presentation.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The theoretical framework is underdeveloped…

Response 1:
Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the initial version did not sufficiently integrate established theoretical models of second language motivation or adequately conceptualise EU informedness. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially strengthened the theoretical framework by explicitly grounding the study in the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) and related approaches to language learning motivation. In addition, EU informedness has been more clearly defined and situated within existing literature, particularly drawing on ICCS research and studies on civic knowledge and participation. Importantly, we now conceptualise self-perceived EU informedness as a contextual and mediating factor that shapes learners’ perception of opportunities and, consequently, their instrumentality-promotion motivation. This relationship is further elaborated through the newly added subsection on equity, inclusion, and institutional barriers, which provides a structural explanation of how access to knowledge may influence motivation. (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3; Introduction).

Comment 2:
The research design lacks clarity and rigor…

Response 2:
Thank you for this observation. We have revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and rigor of the research design. The research questions are now explicitly stated in the Introduction and aligned with the theoretical framework. The methodology section has been expanded to include a detailed description of the sampling procedure, participant characteristics, and instrument design. We provide a clearer explanation of how the IPro scale was adapted from the L2MSS framework and how the InfoEU scale measures self-perceived knowledge across specific EU dimensions. In addition, we report reliability indicators (Cronbach’s alpha), item–total correlations, and results of exploratory factor analysis to demonstrate the internal consistency and construct validity of the instruments in the present sample. The data analysis procedures have also been clarified, including justification for the use of non-parametric tests and detailed reporting of statistical indicators. (Introduction; Sections 3, 3.1, 3.2; Table 1).

Comment 3:
Sample size and representativeness raise concerns…

Response 3:
Thank you for raising this point. We acknowledge that the sample is limited and based on convenience sampling. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly addressed this as a limitation. We clarify that participants were recruited from institutions where the authors teach and that the sample reflects specific study programmes and two higher education centres. We also explicitly state that the findings are exploratory and do not allow for generalisation at the national level. This clarification ensures a more cautious interpretation of the results and aligns the scope of conclusions with the nature of the data. (Section 5 Conclusions – limitations paragraph).

Comment 4:
The presentation of results is primarily descriptive…

Response 4:
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Results section to provide more detailed and transparent reporting of statistical analyses. Correlation coefficients, significance levels, and effect sizes are now systematically reported. In addition to non-parametric correlation analyses, we introduced a hierarchical linear regression as a supplementary robustness check to examine whether the relationship between EU informedness and motivation could be confirmed in a multivariate framework. The results are now interpreted not only descriptively but also analytically, with attention to the strength, consistency, and selectivity of the observed patterns. (Sections 3.2, 3.3; Tables 2–6; Discussion).

Comment 5:
The discussion section is relatively weak…

Response 5:
Thank you for this comment. The Discussion section has been substantially revised to provide a more critical and interpretative analysis of the findings. Instead of restating results, the revised version situates the findings within the broader literature on language learning motivation, EU informedness, and socio-political context. Greater attention is given to explaining the differences between Croatian and Serbian students, particularly in relation to structural asymmetries between EU member and candidate countries. The discussion also integrates findings with existing research on mobility, employability, and educational opportunity structures, while maintaining a cautious tone in interpreting the results. (Section 4 Discussion).

Comment 6:
Policy implications are overstated…

Response 6:
Thank you for this observation. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that policy implications are presented more cautiously and proportionately to the empirical findings. Statements suggesting direct policy recommendations have been softened, and the emphasis has been placed on potential or tentative implications rather than definitive claims. The Conclusions section now highlights that the findings may inform discussions on educational practices, while explicitly acknowledging the exploratory nature of the study and its reliance on self-perceived measures. (Abstract; Section 5 Conclusions).

Comment 7:
Language and style require improvement…

Response 7:
Thank you for this comment. The manuscript has undergone thorough language revision to improve clarity, coherence, and academic tone. Long and complex sentences have been simplified, terminology has been standardised, and the overall structure has been made more consistent across sections. Particular attention was given to improving readability in the Introduction, Literature Review, and Discussion sections. These revisions enhance the precision and clarity of the manuscript and address the concerns regarding language and style. (throughout the manuscript)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following the revisions, the manuscript is clearly more mature, methodologically more rigorous, and more cautious in its interpretation. In my view, the methodological section is the strongest part of the revision. It has been substantially refined and now provides a comprehensive, clear, and transparent account of the research procedure employed.

The only remaining issue that, in my opinion, would benefit from brief clarification concerns the psychometric properties of the IPro scale. The authors themselves note that the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the IPro scale revealed a two-factor pattern with correlated dimensions, suggesting a more differentiated structure of this construct in the present sample. However, the subsequent analyses are conducted mainly using a single composite IPro score. While this approach is defensible, it would be helpful to add one or two sentences explaining why the authors decided to retain a single composite index despite this structural finding.

I would also like to note that in Section 4, where the results are discussed, the authors restate the research questions and highlight them in bold. I think this is unnecessary. It would be sufficient to indicate briefly which part of the discussion addresses each research question, without structuring the discussion by restating and separately highlighting them.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our revised manuscript and for your constructive final comments. We are pleased that the methodological improvements have been recognised.

In response to your remaining suggestions, we have made the following minor revisions:

First, we have clarified the rationale for retaining a single composite IPro score despite the exploratory factor analysis indicating a two-factor structure. Specifically, we added a concise explanation in Section 3.2 (Data Collection and Analysis), where we state that the composite index was retained due to the high internal consistency of the scale, the correlated nature of the extracted factors, and the analytical focus on overall instrumentality-promotion motivation rather than subdimensions.

Second, we revised the Discussion section to improve its structure. The previously highlighted research questions have been removed, and instead, we now indicate more subtly which parts of the discussion address each research question (Section 4). This results in a more integrated and fluent discussion.

In addition, we conducted a final language and style review to improve clarity, consistency, and sentence structure throughout the manuscript.

We believe that these revisions fully address the remaining concerns and further strengthen the manuscript. We appreciate your guidance and thank you for considering our work for publication.

Sincerely,

Authors