Individual and System Factors Involved in First-Generation College Students’ Risk and Resilience: Qualitative Student Perspectives and Recommendations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an impressive essay on an important topic. Especially noteworthy were the extensive quotes from the interviewees themselves, as this underscores the value of qualitative data to the project. The research methods were rigorous and the conclusions convincing. What I particularly appreciated were the concrete recommendations for lending institutional support to first-generation students. While the sample size is limited in terms of diversity, gender, and sexual orientation, the data produced are nonetheless quite useful. My sense is that future studies by this team should include these broader research parameters in more detail.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments:

This is an impressive essay on an important topic. Especially noteworthy were the extensive quotes from the interviewees themselves, as this underscores the value of qualitative data to the project. The research methods were rigorous and the conclusions convincing. What I particularly appreciated were the concrete recommendations for lending institutional support to first-generation students. While the sample size is limited in terms of diversity, gender, and sexual orientation, the data produced are nonetheless quite useful. My sense is that future studies by this team should include these broader research parameters in more detail.

We thank Reviewer 1 for their positive feedback about the manuscript. We are continuing to expand our work on first-generation college students in follow-up studies with larger sample sizes, and absolutely hope to get more variability in terms of diversity, gender, and sexual orientation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic. The experiences of first-generation college students are clearly relevant to questions of educational equity, transition to higher education, student well-being, and institutional support. Overall, I found the manuscript carefully written and grounded in a genuine attempt to foreground students’ own perspectives. The qualitative material is rich, and the authors provide a transparent account of recruitment, data collection, coding, and researcher positionality.

At the same time, I believe the manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. My main concern is that the paper’s conceptual contribution is not yet sufficiently clear. The findings largely confirm what is already known from the literature on first-generation college students: students often experience limited guidance in the college application process, uncertainty around financial aid, pressure to succeed, and a need for stronger institutional and peer support. These are important findings, but the manuscript needs to explain more explicitly what is new about this study and how it extends previous work.

Relatedly, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory is a promising framework, but in the current version it appears to function mainly as a way of organizing the codes rather than as a tool for deeper interpretation. The authors should clarify how the ecological framework shaped the analysis and what additional insight it provides. For example, the manuscript could do more to show how different systems interact with one another, rather than simply placing themes into individual, micro-, meso-, macro-, and chronosystem categories.

The qualitative methodology is generally well described, but some points would benefit from further clarification. The authors state that saturation was reached after approximately 75% of the transcripts had been coded. This claim should be explained more carefully. It would be helpful to specify what kind of saturation is meant and how the research team determined that no further coding or conceptual development was needed. The manuscript would also benefit from a short explanation of whether intercoder agreement was assessed before consensus coding, or why this was not considered necessary.

Another issue concerns the balance between qualitative interpretation and code frequencies. The inclusion of excerpt counts is not problematic in itself, and it can be useful as a transparent overview of the coding process. However, in the current version, Table 1 and parts of the Results rely quite heavily on these counts, which sometimes makes the analysis read more like a descriptive or quantitative content analysis than a thematic analysis. In thematic analysis, the importance of a theme does not necessarily depend on how often it appears. A less frequent experience may also be highly relevant if it reveals an important mechanism, tension, or subgroup-specific challenge. I would therefore encourage the authors to use the counts more as background information and place greater emphasis on interpretation. In particular, several codes and themes appear closely connected, such as insufficient guidance, help-seeking, support people, and university resources. These could perhaps be developed into fewer, more integrated and analytically richer themes showing how students experience gaps in guidance, how they try to compensate for these gaps, and which people or institutional resources help them navigate this process.

The sample and setting also need to be discussed more critically. The study was conducted at one institution, with a sample that is predominantly White (or Caucasian) and female and located in a specific university context. This does not undermine the value of the study, but it does limit the transferability of the findings. The authors already acknowledge some contextual features, but the Discussion should state more clearly that some findings may reflect this particular institutional environment rather than the broader experience of first-generation college students.

The practical implications are one of the manuscript’s strengths, especially the recommendations for high school and university personnel. However, these recommendations could be strengthened by linking them more directly to existing research on student support, transition programs, mentoring, and inclusive institutional practices. At present, some recommendations remain rather descriptive, such as providing more information, improving financial guidance, and creating mentoring opportunities. These are useful points, but the manuscript should explain how they could be implemented and why they are likely to be effective.

In terms of presentation, the manuscript would benefit from some shortening and restructuring. The Introduction is informative but could be more focused. Table 1 is very long and reads more like a codebook; part of it could be moved to supplementary material. Some quotations in the Results could also be shortened to improve readability. Finally, the Discussion should more clearly distinguish among findings that confirm previous research, those that add nuance, and those that offer genuinely new insights.

Despite these concerns, I see clear potential in the manuscript. The topic is relevant, the data are valuable, and the authors have taken care to represent students’ voices responsibly. With a stronger articulation of the study’s contribution, a deeper use of the ecological framework, and a more interpretive presentation of the qualitative findings, the manuscript could make a meaningful contribution to the literature on first-generation college students and institutional support in higher education.

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments:

1. The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic. The experiences of first-generation college students are clearly relevant to questions of educational equity, transition to higher education, student well-being, and institutional support. Overall, I found the manuscript carefully written and grounded in a genuine attempt to foreground students’ own perspectives. The qualitative material is rich, and the authors provide a transparent account of recruitment, data collection, coding, and researcher positionality.

 

We thank Reviewer 2 for recognizing the strengths of our study.

 

2. At the same time, I believe the manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. My main concern is that the paper’s conceptual contribution is not yet sufficiently clear. The findings largely confirm what is already known from the literature on first-generation college students: students often experience limited guidance in the college application process, uncertainty around financial aid, pressure to succeed, and a need for stronger institutional and peer support. These are important findings, but the manuscript needs to explain more explicitly what is new about this study and how it extends previous work.

 

We thank the reviewer for this comment as it is important to distinguish how our study is different from previous literature. In the Introduction, we aim to better clarify our conceptual contribution and what is truly novel about the study. We have edited the Introduction (e.g., p. 2-4 such as the second to last paragraph of the introduction) to clarify the paper’s conceptual contribution and what is new about our study. In the Discussion, we also added clarity to our unique conceptual contribution and novel aspects of the study (e.g., p. 23-24, first paragraph of the introduction and section 4.3., p. 28, first paragraph). Throughout the Discussion (e.g., p. 24-25), we have also more clearly distinguished findings that confirm previous research versus those that add nuance, versus those that are truly novel. For example, on p. 24, we make clear that a whole paragraph focuses on what is consistent with previous literature, whereas another covers findings that add nuance.

 

3. Relatedly, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory is a promising framework, but in the current version it appears to function mainly as a way of organizing the codes rather than as a tool for deeper interpretation. The authors should clarify how the ecological framework shaped the analysis and what additional insight it provides. For example, the manuscript could do more to show how different systems interact with one another, rather than simply placing themes into individual, micro-, meso-, macro-, and chronosystem categories.

 

We thank the Reviewer for this important comment and appreciate the opportunity to clarify and expand upon how Bronfenbrenner’s theory influenced our analysis beyond our codebook. To be fully responsive to this important and helpful feedback, we did the following:

• In the Abstract, we focus more on central themes that demonstrate interactions between levels of Bronfenbrenner’s theory.
• In the Introduction, we wove Bronfenbrenner’s theory more deeply into our background (e.g., p. 3-4).
• We have expanded on how the theory shaped our analysis in the Qualitative Approach and Analysis section (p. 8).
• In the results, we added section 3.6 (Central Themes of How Interactions between Individuals and Systems Conferred Risk or Resilience) that integrates several previously separate themes, and highlights them as central, key themes.
• Within the discussion we now also emphasize the interactions between systems with greater detail (e.g., p. 24, first paragraph of the Discussion).

 

4. The qualitative methodology is generally well described, but some points would benefit from further clarification. The authors state that saturation was reached after approximately 75% of the transcripts had been coded. This claim should be explained more carefully. It would be helpful to specify what kind of saturation is meant and how the research team determined that no further coding or conceptual development was needed. The manuscript would also benefit from a short explanation of whether intercoder agreement was assessed before consensus coding, or why this was not considered necessary.

 

We added an introductory paragraph to section 2.7. Qualitative Approach & Analysis that gives a bird’s eye view of the overarching qualitative theories we pulled from in developing our coding and analytic framework (p. 8), which comments on both which theories we consulted around saturation and hints at our conceptual priorities. We also elaborated on our process in the fourth paragraph of this section.

 

In both instances within the methods when we mention saturation, we define which type of saturation we mean (p. 8 and 9), which allowed us to stop sampling and adding additional codes to the codebook.

 

We added an explanation of why we did not pursue intercoder agreement, which is due to our approach aligning most closely with codebook thematic analysis (see p. 9). Notably, we included a positionality statement in the manuscript because we want to clearly acknowledge that our subjective experiences influence the way we code and sharing our background and positionality helps with this (Braun & Clarke, 2022; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9879167/).

5. Another issue concerns the balance between qualitative interpretation and code frequencies. The inclusion of excerpt counts is not problematic in itself, and it can be useful as a transparent overview of the coding process. However, in the current version, Table 1 and parts of the Results rely quite heavily on these counts, which sometimes makes the analysis read more like a descriptive or quantitative content analysis than a thematic analysis. In thematic analysis, the importance of a theme does not necessarily depend on how often it appears. A less frequent experience may also be highly relevant if it reveals an important mechanism, tension, or subgroup-specific challenge. I would therefore encourage the authors to use the counts more as background information and place greater emphasis on interpretation. In particular, several codes and themes appear closely connected, such as insufficient guidance, help-seeking, support people, and university resources. These could perhaps be developed into fewer, more integrated and analytically richer themes showing how students experience gaps in guidance, how they try to compensate for these gaps, and which people or institutional resources help them navigate this process.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback to center qualitative interpretation over counts. We want to emphasize that we have been deeply engaged with the data at every step of the qualitative process, and largely referenced counts to make sure key themes shared by participants were not missed. Furthermore, the counts came much after our collaboration in theme generation and defining, and the heart of our approach was collaborative meaning-making.

 

To address the reviewer’s helpful constructive feedback to further de-emphasize counts, we have done the following:

1. In the abstract, we now de-emphasize counts and highlight the central themes instead.
2. We have also significantly streamlined Table 1 so that it now only includes the six Bronfenbrenner categories, risk factors, resilience factors, their definitions, and counts, and moved the rest to be a supplemental table in Appendix B.
3. In terms of counts in the Results, we have largely removed information about which codes were most common in each category, while simply retaining frequency counts of codes that were double-coded as resilience versus risk, as this data was central to our research questions. For example, see the first paragraph of Results section 3.2.
4. As recommended we examined whether closely connected themes could be combined, and were able to combine many themes to reduce redundancy and increase the richness of individual themes.
1. The biggest change is that we added a new section 3.6., titled Central Themes of How Interactions between Individuals and Systems Conferred Risk or Resilience, where we pulled together four themes that we feel are most central to our findings and illustrate interactions between levels of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Within this section, theme 1 and 2 both synthesize previously separate themes. Theme 2 integrates several related codes highlighted by the Reviewer, such as insufficient guidance, help-seeking, support people, and university resources. Theme 3 was modified from the original manuscript to illustrate how microsystems and individual factors give rise to help-seeking beliefs and behaviors. Theme 4 remains largely unchanged, and simply was moved out of the Chronosystem heading, recognizing that it also touches on individual and microsystem factors.
2. Additional examples of themes that were synthesized to weave together two previously separate themes are section 3.2.3. Theme 3 and section 3.3.1 Theme 1.
5. In the discussion, we also move central themes to the forefront (e.g., p. 24) and counts to be more as background information (e.g., when discussing chronosystem findings on p. 26).

 

6. The sample and setting also need to be discussed more critically. The study was conducted at one institution, with a sample that is predominantly White (or Caucasian) and female and located in a specific university context. This does not undermine the value of the study, but it does limit the transferability of the findings. The authors already acknowledge some contextual features, but the Discussion should state more clearly that some findings may reflect this particular institutional environment rather than the broader experience of first-generation college students.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment to more fully discuss the limitations of our sample and settings, since it reduces the generalizability of our findings. We have added further explanation of the shortcomings of our particular study within the limitations section (p. 27-28). This includes a more critical discussion of the demographics of our sample, how our participants were attending an institution with already established first-generation programming and resources, as well as how the sample was likely made up of more engaged individuals, since their participation in our study was entirely voluntary. Additionally, we further emphasized how these factors could potentially reduce the generalizability of our findings. We give further clarification surrounding the recommendation that future studies need to include other first-generation subgroups (i.e.  individuals with various intersectional identities, those attending a university with less first-generation specific resources, individuals who have discontinued their bachelor’s studies, etc.) as the findings of other first-generation samples may differ from ours and add a more comprehensive overview of the first-generation perspective.

7. The practical implications are one of the manuscript’s strengths, especially the recommendations for high school and university personnel. However, these recommendations could be strengthened by linking them more directly to existing research on student support, transition programs, mentoring, and inclusive institutional practices. At present, some recommendations remain rather descriptive, such as providing more information, improving financial guidance, and creating mentoring opportunities. These are useful points, but the manuscript should explain how they could be implemented and why they are likely to be effective.

 

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have used previous research to further justify some of our suggestions in the discussion section. These changes can be found on pages 28 and 29.

 

8. In terms of presentation, the manuscript would benefit from some shortening and restructuring. The Introduction is informative but could be more focused. Table 1 is very long and reads more like a codebook; part of it could be moved to supplementary material. Some quotations in the Results could also be shortened to improve readability. Finally, the Discussion should more clearly distinguish among findings that confirm previous research, those that add nuance, and those that offer genuinely new insights.

 

We appreciate this reviewer’s comments. We have edited the introduction to be more succinct with greater focus to our specific study (e.g., first paragraph on page 1, last paragraph on page 2). We have also moved all reference to the Markle & Stelzriede (2020) study to the discussion, where we think it better fits (moved from the end of introduction p. 3). Additionally, as discussed in our response to Reviewer 2, Comment 5, we significantly reorganized the Results to be more succinct and less redundant and we significantly shortened Table 1. We have divided the original Table 1 into a succinct Table 1 and an Appendix B, so that only the most important codes and categories are included in Table 1, and additional codes and counts are included as a supplement. As recommended, throughout the Results, we have done our best to shorten quotations (e.g., in Table 2) without comprising meaning. Throughout the Discussion, we have also more clearly distinguished findings that confirm previous research versus those that add nuance, versus those that are truly novel. For example, on p. 23-24, we make clear that a whole paragraph focused on what is consistent with previous literature, whereas another covers findings that add nuance.

9. Despite these concerns, I see clear potential in the manuscript. The topic is relevant, the data are valuable, and the authors have taken care to represent students’ voices responsibly. With a stronger articulation of the study’s contribution, a deeper use of the ecological framework, and a more interpretive presentation of the qualitative findings, the manuscript could make a meaningful contribution to the literature on first-generation college students and institutional support in higher education.

We appreciate that the Reviewer sees the potential of our manuscript. We have responded to your major concerns in Comments 2, 3, and 5 above.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic by exploring risk and resilience factors among first-generation college students through a qualitative approach. The study offers valuable insights into students’ lived experiences and makes a practical contribution by incorporating participants’ recommendations for secondary and higher education institutions. The manuscript is generally well written, methodologically transparent, and grounded in a relevant theoretical framework.

The study has several strengths. The qualitative design provides rich and nuanced data, addressing a gap in a literature largely dominated by quantitative studies. The use of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory offers a clear organizational structure for presenting findings, and the methodological procedures are described in a transparent and rigorous manner.

However, several issues should be addressed before publication.

1. Theoretical contribution requires strengthening

Although Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory is presented as the study’s guiding framework, it is used primarily as a classification tool for organizing codes and themes. The manuscript would benefit from a deeper theoretical discussion of how interactions among ecological systems contribute to resilience processes and what new theoretical insights emerge from the findings. At present, the study remains largely descriptive.

2. Greater conceptual clarity regarding resilience is needed

One of the central conclusions is that previous literature may underestimate the resilience of first-generation college students. However, resilience is not sufficiently distinguished from related constructs such as persistence, coping, self-efficacy, or social support. The authors should provide a clearer conceptualization of resilience and explain how risk and resilience factors were differentiated during analysis.

3. Sample limitations require more critical discussion

The sample consists predominantly of highly engaged, currently enrolled students attending a university with substantial institutional support for first-generation students. Consequently, the findings may reflect the experiences of a particularly successful subgroup. The discussion should more explicitly acknowledge that students who discontinued their studies or experienced more significant academic difficulties may report substantially different experiences.

 

4. Intersectionality is underdeveloped

Although participants discussed socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexuality, and family background, these dimensions remain largely descriptive. A more systematic consideration of intersectionality would strengthen the manuscript and align it with current directions in higher education research.

5. Recommendations should be more closely linked to findings

The practical recommendations are valuable, but some appear broader than the presented data directly support. The authors should more clearly distinguish recommendations emerging directly from participants’ voices from those derived from the authors’ interpretations.

 

Minor comments

Reduce repetition between the Results and Discussion sections.

Consider condensing some participant quotations.

Provide greater synthesis across interconnected themes.

 

Overall evaluation

This is a well-executed qualitative study addressing an important topic. Nevertheless, to meet the expectations of a high-impact international journal, the manuscript would benefit from a stronger theoretical contribution, greater conceptual clarity regarding resilience, a deeper engagement with intersectionality, and a more critical discussion of sample limitations. With substantial revision, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature on first-generation college students.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments:

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic by exploring risk and resilience factors among first-generation college students through a qualitative approach. The study offers valuable insights into students’ lived experiences and makes a practical contribution by incorporating participants’ recommendations for secondary and higher education institutions. The manuscript is generally well written, methodologically transparent, and grounded in a relevant theoretical framework.The study has several strengths. The qualitative design provides rich and nuanced data, addressing a gap in a literature largely dominated by quantitative studies. The use of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory offers a clear organizational structure for presenting findings, and the methodological procedures are described in a transparent and rigorous manner. However, several issues should be addressed before publication.

We appreciate Reviewer 3’s comments about the strengths of the manuscript and study. We believe we have addressed the important issues they brought up below in a stronger, revised version of the manuscript.

1. Theoretical contribution requires strengthening. Although Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory is presented as the study’s guiding framework, it is used primarily as a classification tool for organizing codes and themes. The manuscript would benefit from a deeper theoretical discussion of how interactions among ecological systems contribute to resilience processes and what new theoretical insights emerge from the findings. At present, the study remains largely descriptive.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing this out. Regarding your concerns about interactions, we have taken several steps to address these concerns. In particular, see our response to Reviewer 2’s Comment 3 (attached).

Regarding your concerns specifically about how interactions amongst systems contribute to resilience processes, we have also modified the manuscript as follows:

1. We added a section in the intro on p. 3 to better ground our terms related to risk and resilience within an additional theory, the Developmental Psychopathology perspective.
2. We more overtly connect the concept of resilience to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (e.g., p. 3-4).
3. Several of our themes now more overtly touch on how different levels of Bronfenbrenner’s theory and/or their interactions contribute to resilience processes (e.g., Results section 3.2.3. Theme 3; section 3.6.2. Theme 2).

2. Greater conceptual clarity regarding resilience is needed. One of the central conclusions is that previous literature may underestimate the resilience of first-generation college students. However, resilience is not sufficiently distinguished from related constructs such as persistence, coping, self-efficacy, or social support. The authors should provide a clearer conceptualization of resilience and explain how risk and resilience factors were differentiated during analysis.

We thank the Reviewer for this important comment. On page 2, we now point to theories that informed our definitions of risk and resilience factors. Integrating developmental psychopathology and ecological systems theory perspectives, we now clearly define resilience:

In contrast, we define a resilience factor (synonymous with protective factors) as a “positive developmental variable” that “helps to offset the impact of” risk factors and promote good outcomes (e.g., good adjustment or well-being, academic success) (Comer & Comer, 2024) (p. 87). Recent research suggests that resilience represents a “complex, interconnected network” of individual traits and systems that interact with one another to positively impact developmental outcomes (Maltby, 2024) (p. 228). 

Additionally, we discussed how risk and resilience factors were differentiated during analysis on p. 8 (last paragraph). We also briefly describe our operational definition of resilience for coding in this section. In our conceptualization, codebook, and analysis, we use the term resilience as a broad umbrella term for any potential individual or systemic variable that could offset the impact of risk factors and/or promote positive outcomes. In contrast, persistence in the face of adversity (a more specific code in our codebook), coping, self-efficacy, and social support are all examples of more specific types of a broader resilience factor. This view of resilience as a broader network and the other terms (e.g., persistence in the face of adversity, coping, self-efficacy) as specific examples within the network is consistent with previous work (Matby, 2023).

3. Sample limitations require more critical discussion. The sample consists predominantly of highly engaged, currently enrolled students attending a university with substantial institutional support for first-generation students. Consequently, the findings may reflect the experiences of a particularly successful subgroup. The discussion should more explicitly acknowledge that students who discontinued their studies or experienced more significant academic difficulties may report substantially different experiences.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment to more fully discuss limitations of our sample and settings, since it reduces the generalizability of our findings. Please see our response to Reviewer 2 comment 6 (attached) regarding how we more critically discussed the limitations of our sample and further expanded on future recommendations to incorporate a broader range of first-generation students with various college trajectories (e.g., those who have transferred or discontinued college).

4. Intersectionality is underdeveloped. Although participants discussed socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexuality, and family background, these dimensions remain largely descriptive. A more systematic consideration of intersectionality would strengthen the manuscript and align it with current directions in higher education research.

We thank the Reviewer for this important comment. We initially discussed intersectionality in the Participants section of the Methods, but have moved that paragraph into the Results (p. 17-18) and expanded upon it with more analysis and quotations.

In the Discussion, we now make sense of our findings on intersectional identities (p. 25) and also tie it to our sample limitations (p. 28).

1. Recommendations should be more closely linked to findings. The practical recommendations are valuable, but some appear broader than the presented data directly support. The authors should more clearly distinguish recommendations emerging directly from participants’ voices from those derived from the authors’ interpretations.

Throughout the Discussion, we have differentiated which are participants’ recommendations versus our own recommendations. We have also removed any recommendations that are not directly related to findings. For example, we have edited Table 2 and Discussion section 4.2. such that recommendations for high school staff are no longer divided into universal versus targeted programming. Additionally, we have softened our recommendation to use GroupMe for communication with students (p. 27).

Minor comments

1. Reduce repetition between the Results and Discussion sections.

We have made efforts to thoughtfully reduce repetition between the Results and Discussion.

2. Consider condensing some participant quotations.

As recommended, throughout the Results (e.g., Table 2), we have done our best to shorten quotations without comprising meaning.

3. Provide greater synthesis across interconnected themes.

Thanks for pointing this out. We completely agree, thus, greater synthesis of themes has been one of the things we have most focused on improving in this revision. We did so across the Results. See response to Reviewer 2 Comment 5 for more details.

Overall evaluation

This is a well-executed qualitative study addressing an important topic. Nevertheless, to meet the expectations of a high-impact international journal, the manuscript would benefit from a stronger theoretical contribution, greater conceptual clarity regarding resilience, a deeper engagement with intersectionality, and a more critical discussion of sample limitations. With substantial revision, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature on first-generation college students.

We appreciate your positive feedback. We hope that our responses to your comments (1, 2, 3, 4) alleviate your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the careful revision of the manuscript. I appreciate the authors' thorough responses to the reviewers' comments and the substantial improvements made to the paper. In particular, the manuscript now presents a clearer conceptual contribution, provides a stronger integration of the ecological framework, and offers a more coherent interpretation of the qualitative findings. The revisions have further strengthened an already valuable study, and I believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication in Education Sciences.

All the best,

Reviewer

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all comments and suggestions. The manuscript is now suitable for publication in its present form.