Expectations and Reflections About Starting University—A Qualitative Focus Group Study with First- and Third-Year Psychology Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First and foremost, I would like to congratulate the authors on this valuable and meticulously prepared study. The research makes a significant contribution to the literature on student expectations and transition processes. The strengths of the study and recommendations for development can be found below.

General Comments and the Big Picture:

The study generally possesses a robust research design and is well-structured to address the identified research gap. The approach of comparing the experiences of first-year and third-year students through a comparative lens provides a unique contribution to the field.

Introduction: The research framework is generally consistent. The research gap and questions are clearly defined and well-structured. The literature review strongly establishes the foundational points of the study.

Method: The qualitative research methodology is generally consistent and comprehensively covers the essential steps of qualitative research, such as focus group implementation, data collection, and thematic analysis. The explanations regarding participant selection and the data analysis process are sufficient.

Development Recommendation: The rationale for the larger number of first-year participants should be explained.

Findings: The findings are extremely detailed and enriched with participants' direct discourses. This adds strong qualitative depth and authenticity to the study.

Development Recommendations:  In its current state, the Findings section may be somewhat taxing for the reader and make it difficult to grasp the core messages clearly. While preserving participant quotes, it could be partially summarized or condensed to bring the interpretations and analytical inferences more to the forefront. Greater clarity in the presentation of the findings would be beneficial. It should be explicitly stated which theme or finding corresponds to which specific research question (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3). This will allow the reader to more easily map the findings onto the research questions and better comprehend the integrity of the study,

Discussion: The Discussion section generally reflects the findings well and integrates them consistently with the existing literature. The presentation of practical recommendations based on Astin's IEO model enhances the applied value of the study.

Development Recommendation: The reference to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is an understandable attempt to highlight the study's relevance. However, since the data were collected in 2018, I am of the opinion that this topic does not add concrete value to the study. I recommend removing this emphasis, as the primary strength of the study lies in its illumination of universal student transition processes that are valid independently of the pandemic. This change would strengthen the focus. Of course, the authors may retain this point in the discussion if they deem it necessary.

Bibliography: The references are generally consistent and relevant to the topic.  I have suggested one or two recent sources to the authors via the file. This would reinforce the timeliness of the study.

Conclusion:This is a well-designed study that offers valuable contributions to the field. The recommendations above aim to further strengthen the impact and readability of the work, particularly by clarifying the presentation of the findings and enhancing focus. I once again congratulate the authors on this diligent work

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1 

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their thoughtful and encouraging comments. We particularly appreciate the recognition of the contribution, structure, and qualitative depth of the study. 

Comment 1: Positive comments replating the of the overall design, literature positioning, and contribution of the study.  Response: We thank the reviewer for these kind comments and are pleased the study’s design and contribution were recognised. No changes were required in response to this point. 

Comment 2: The rationale for the larger number of first-year participants should be explained.  Response: A sentence has been added in the Participants and Recruitment section explaining the institutional timetable structure, which resulted in higher availability and uptake among first-year students. 

Comment 3: The Findings section is rich but may feel heavy for the reader. Consider some condensation and clearer organisation.  Response: We have strengthened the readability of the Findings section by adding a short overview sentence at the start of each section to signpost the structure of the themes. We have also added a table that clearly maps each theme to the research questions, and a summary paragraph at the end of the Findings in order to draw the core analytical points together. These additions support clearer navigation of the section while retaining the depth and authenticity offered by participant quotations. While improving the structure for readability, we intentionally retained the richness of participant quotations, as these were integral to conveying lived experience and nuance. 

Comment 4: Clarify which themes correspond to which research questions. Response: A table has now been included to explicitly map each theme to RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3.  

Comment 5: Remove or reduce references to the COVID-19 pandemic given data were collected pre-pandemic.  Response: References to COVID-19 have been reduced and reframed, ensuring the focus remains on enduring transition processes. 

Comment 6: Add the suggested recent sources to reinforce timeliness.  Response: The additional research articles for Gök, E., & Uslu, M. (2025) and  Nkosi, N., & Mashaba, M. (2025) have been added as suggested. Thank you for recommending them.  

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript is strong and provides perspective on students' expectations and experiences at the university level and how academic factors influence such experiences. See below for my suggestions:

INTRODUCTION

-Are the UK institutions traditionally a three year program? I am confused why fourth year students were not selected.  Clarifying this would strengthen your paper.

-You cite much literature but expanding on your sources in a separate literature review section would enhance your paper. 

METHODS

-Can you define what Russell Group (line 132) means? As someone who is based in the US, I am unfamiliar with this. 

-Are the UK institutions traditionally a three year program? I am confused why fourth year students were not selected.  Clarifying this would strengthen your paper. 

-Rather than use the word "disability," (line 135), you may want to use "accessibility" as it is more inclusive. 

-It is unclear if Table 4 was generated by the authors or if it is a copy from the cited source. 

-Although you note the framework you use in your design/analyses, you do not identify a framework for your study. Is there a reason why? Elaborating on this or identifying a conceptual or theoretical framework would strengthen your paper. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 

We thank Reviewer 2 for their positive and constructive feedback. We appreciate the acknowledgement of the contribution to understanding student expectations and experiences in higher education. 

Comment 1: Clarify whether UK undergraduate programmes are typically three years and why fourth-year students were not selected.   Response: We have added a sentence to clarify that UK undergraduate psychology programmes are normally three years in length and that fourth-year students are typically on an optional placement or integrated master’s pathway, which therefore fell outside the scope of this study. 

Comment 2: A separate literature review section could strengthen the paper. Response: A distinct Literature Context section has now been developed to expand the theoretical grounding before the research questions. 

Comment 3: Define “Russell Group” for readers outside the UK.  Response: “Russell Group” is now defined at first mention as a group of UK research-intensive universities. 

Comment 4: Replace “disability” with more inclusive terminology.  Response: We have replaced this term with “accessibility need” or “study adjustments” except where precise classification is necessary for clarity. 

Comment 5: Clarify whether Table 4 is original or reproduced. Response: A note has been added confirming that the table is researcher-created, drawn from another study and based on Braun and Clarke’s steps rather than replicating them exactly. 

Comment 6: Identify a conceptual framework guiding the study, not only the analytic framework.   Response: We have clarified the use of Astin’s Inputs–Environment–Outcomes model as a sensitising interpretive framework.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made are suitable for acceptance. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study was well conceived and designed. A very good snapshot of the transitions and challenges faced by undergraduates in the UK.  Conclusions/discussion is resonant to a North American reviewer. A few thoughts: 1. The participants were mostly female (identified).  There could be a discussion of gender differences in these experiences. Also, were the participants able to choose other than male/female gender?  Could be relevant, although maybe more for social adjustments than academic. Having said that, I find it hard to separate academic from socioemotional issues.  2. Many of the references are over 10 years old. Surely here is more recent literature.  This is an area of study globally.  3. This research supports and in some cases elaborates existing research.  But there isn't anything really new.  Can the authors find something original to say about this study?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have helped us refine the manuscript. We have responded point by point and indicated all revisions using tracked changes in the file.

Comment 1: The participants were mostly female. Please discuss gender differences. Also, could participants choose other than male or female.

Author response: We have clarified in Participant demographics that we collected year and sex only, and did not collect gender identity or other categories. We now report the sex distribution and provide a cautious narrative comment on whether any patterns appear to differ by sex, without causal interpretation. We acknowledge that the absence of gender identity data limits analysis of gendered experiences, and we note this as a limitation and an area for future work.

 

Comment 2: Many references are over 10 years old. Please add more recent literature.

Author response: The Introduction and Discussion have been updated to include recent work from 2015 to 2024 on transition, engagement, belonging, self-regulation, and student mental health, while retaining foundational sources where appropriate. The reference list has been fully checked and reformatted to the journal style.

 

Comment 3: The study feels confirmatory. Can the authors say something original.

Author response: We now make the contribution explicit. The Introduction ends with a statement of contribution that positions our repeated cross-sectional comparison within a single programme and institution. The Discussion adds a practice-oriented synthesis that links themes to concrete design levers for teaching and support, organised with a brief mapping to Astin’s inputs, environment, outcomes, used heuristically and aligned with reflexive qualitative analysis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

Thank you for providing the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study explores the academic learning experiences of students during their transition to higher education. While this research topic is interesting and relevant, I note some serious concerns regarding the methodological approach and the logical structure of the manuscript. I encourage the authors to reconsider their study and revise the manuscript based on the following comments.

 

Specific Comments on the Revision:

• While the study employs a longitudinal approach, it does not track the same individuals over multiple time points. Rather, it relies on cross-sectional comparisons between different cohorts (this can be termed a pseudolongitudinal design). Therefore, any causal inferences drawn from the data should be treated with caution.
• The research question is unclear, and the methodology and analysis provided by the authors do not adequately address it. The study aims to explore the academic learning experiences of students transitioning to higher education by comparing the perspectives of students at the beginning and end of their academic journeys. However, this comparison is not clearly developed in the analysis.
• It is not clear how this study contributes to the literature in terms of practical or theoretical implications. The conclusion makes a leap from the data. For example, no data directly support the authors’ claim that teachers’ enthusiasm for their research topics influences their students’ future plans. Furthermore, while the recommendations that are outlined in the Conclusion section are important, they are superficial and do not sufficiently delve into the meaning structure or contextual implications of the data. The fact that this study is essentially a cross-sectional survey limits the validity of any causal or process-based claims and does not accurately demonstrate the transformation of the perceptions and behaviors of individual students or cohorts, which weakens the persuasiveness of the recommendations.
• The limitation section has redundancies. Please make it more concise.
• There are several editorial issues. Please ensure that all keywords are written in lowercase, in accordance with the journal’s style guidelines. The text in the appendix table is too small to be read. Different fonts appear throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

We appreciate the reviewer’s close reading and practical suggestions that improve clarity, currency of the literature, and framing. Revisions are highlighted with tracked changes and summarised in the responses below.

General comment: Concerns about design and structure.

Author response: We revised the structure, clarified the design, sharpened the research questions, and tightened claims to match the evidence.

Specific comments

Comment 1: The design is pseudolongitudinal. Avoid causal inference.

Author response: We now describe the study as repeated cross-sectional or pseudolongitudinal in the Abstract, Methods, and Limitations. We removed causal and process wording and use comparative phrasing consistently.

Comment 2: The research question is unclear, and the entry-to-exit comparison is not fully developed.

Author response: Explicit research questions are now stated at the end of the Introduction. Results are reorganised with parallel subheadings for first-year and third-year perspectives within each theme, with clear signposting of similarities and differences.

Comment 3: Contribution and implications are unclear. Some claims are not directly supported. Recommendations feel superficial.

Author response: We audited all claims and removed or reframed any that lacked direct support. For example, we restrict comments about teachers’ enthusiasm to immediate motivation, where extracts substantiate this. Each recommendation now links to a specific theme, an illustrative quotation, and the locus of action, for example module, programme, or service level. We add a short paragraph on theoretical implications connected to current frameworks on engagement and self-regulation. All implications are framed appropriately for a cross-sectional design.

 Comment 4: The Limitations section has redundancies.

Author response: Limitations have been condensed to focus on design, cohort composition, timing of data collection, and transferability. Explanatory material that belonged in the Discussion has been moved.

 

Comment 5: Editorial issues, including keywords case, appendix legibility, and fonts.

Author response: Keywords are now in lowercase per journal style. Appendix table text has been increased for legibility. Fonts are standardised throughout.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on the reflections and expectations of students at the beginning of their academic BA level studies.

I suggest some minor changes and completion of the following:

1.'Participant demographics' must include their age and where they lived before the age of 14 (urban or rural area), and where they finished high school.

2.Appendix A needs a title.
3.Insert the focus group semi-structured interview dimensions and questions in Appendix B.
4.The text needs extensive editing (citation of interview extracts must be separate).
5.The references need extensive editing in line with journal expectations.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

We are grateful for the reviewer’s insights, which prompted us to sharpen the research questions, temper inferences, and strengthen the implications for practice. We have implemented suggestions where feasible; edits appear as tracked changes with brief justifications in our replies

Comment 1: Participant demographics must include age, pre-14 residence, and where high school was finished.

Author response: We clarify that the study collected year and sex only. Age, pre-14 residence, and prior school location were not collected, so these cannot be added. This is now stated transparently in Participant demographics and noted as a limitation, with a brief rationale for the focused demographic scope and a recommendation to include these variables in future studies.

Comment 2: Appendix A needs a title.
Author response: Appendix A now has a descriptive title.

Comment 3: Insert the focus group semi-structured interview dimensions and questions in Appendix B.

Author response: Appendix B now includes the interview dimensions with example questions, and a note describing minor adaptations between first- and third-year groups.

Comment 4: The text needs extensive editing, including separate citation of interview extracts.
Author response: We completed line-by-line edits for clarity and consistency. Interview extracts are now presented on separate lines with identifiers, and in-text citations are standardised to the journal style.

Comment 5: References need extensive editing in line with journal expectations.

Author response: We have thoroughly revised the reference list to ensure full alignment with the journal’s style guidelines, including consistent abbreviation of journal titles, correct punctuation, and formatting of volume, issue, and page numbers.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article summarizes focus groups’ responses to their transitions to University at two different stages. Comparing the first year to the third year experience shows development and growth in the students.

The article is very well written by style and language. Some points to consider to make the article stronger and more relevant are provided below.

References: Many references are very dated and newer studies should be included about students’ participation and engagement.

Introduction: Consider adding a section describing the students to help contextualize the study. Reading the manuscript I assume these students are fulltime, undergraduate students. What makes this population unique, as opposed to other students (i.e. adult students?) This does not have to be lengthy, but tell the reader a bit about this type of student.

Current study: While the goal for the study is clear, the implications or objective is not. A statement about why this study matters would be helpful. The authors might consider something like: Retention and graduation rates are important metrics for institutions of higher education, so understanding how a student moves through their program, transitioning from first year to third year, can help provide specific student support efforts.

A sizeable issue with the manuscript is the period in which data were collected. Presently, the only mention of COVID is in the limitations. Missing from the manuscript is the reason why these data are still relevant to institutions and students now, after seven years, and after the massive upheaval of students during the pandemic. (Maybe: A connection might be to describe how students’ mental health during and immediately after COVID declined, potentially making the change in students from first to third year is still crucially important.)  

Methodology: This is technically “Methods” as methodology is not mentioned (i.e. phenomenological). This section is well written and explains the coding and analysis processes very well. The “theoretical approach” is not right. This subheading should be changed to “data analysis.”

Results & Discussion: While I think this section is well written, the combination of results and discussion makes it difficult to pull strong conclusions from the data. The themes are well defined, but the inclusion of literature in this section makes it difficult to stay within the data reporting. These sections should be separated with a results/findings section and then a discussion section, placing the themes into conversation with the literature. For example: Consistent with other scholars (e.g., Hadwin et al., 2001) students spoke of changing their study habits to fit their routine, workload, and specific modules due to differences in assessment modes, in turn informing their exam approach and revision methods (p.9) would be better in the discussion section. With the separation, the reader can easily focus on the results/findings and will make the implications of the study clearer.

 

Limitations: This section is very lengthy and some points would be better suited in a discussion or implications section. For example, the third paragraph Similarly, a lack of balance between academic and non-academic responsibilities… seems like a point to be made in the discussion section, and why attending to students’ navigation from first to third year needs intentional activities from the campus. In the limitations, you might consider simply state: “Information about students’ extra curricular activities were not collected, which may have change their experiences or responses.”   

Conclusion: I’m not sure what the implication of this study is, especially because the cohort of students in the focus group has already graduated. This is where contextualizing the students will be helpful so that connections to current/contemporary students can be made. Additionally, separating the results/findings with the discussion, and connecting the data from 2018 to more current day students, will help make the implications easier to explain to the reader.

Other comments: You might consider adding a theoretical framework to help the reader digest the themes. You’ll need something that doesn’t conflict with your analysis and can be worked into the analysis. Maybe consider Astin’s I-E-O or a theory on student development.  

Some formatting issues remain: different fonts, starting sentences with numbers, quotes on indented direct quotes. These might be reformatted later, but nothing worse than seeing your work published with small, weird formatting!

There is value in this study, so I encourage you to keep writing and editing!

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Thank you for highlighting areas for improvement in structure, methods labelling, and style. We have addressed every comment and marked all additions, deletions, and rewording with tracked changes; any new or updated references are listed in the responses.

Comment 1: Many references are dated. Include newer studies on participation and engagement.

Author response: We incorporated more recent studies on participation, engagement, and belonging from the last decade, including UK and international sources, while retaining a small number of key foundational works for context.

Comment 2: Add a section describing the students to contextualise the study.

Author response: A short subsection in the Introduction now describes the programme context and participant profile, including level of study and typical study patterns, so readers can situate the findings.

Comment 3: Clarify why the study matters.

Author response: The Introduction now ends with a concise statement of significance that links understanding transitions from first to third year to student success, retention, and targeting of support, aligned with our research questions.

Comment 4: Address timing of data collection and relevance after COVID.

Author response: The Discussion explains the continued relevance of the themes and distinguishes enduring features of transition from pandemic-specific phenomena. This point is also flagged in Limitations.

Comment 5: Use Methods rather than Methodology. Change theoretical approach to data analysis.

Author response: Headings have been changed to Methods and Data analysis. Content remains a description of procedures and analytic steps.

Comment 6: Separate Results and Discussion and move literature from Results to Discussion.

Author response: Results and Discussion are now separate. Results present themes with extracts only. The Discussion places these themes in dialogue with the literature and develops implications.

Comment 7: Limitations include content that belongs in Discussion.

Author response: These points have been relocated to Discussion, and Limitations have been streamlined.

Comment 8: Clarify implications and connect to current students.

Author response: The Conclusion now summarises actionable implications for programme design and student support and explains how the findings generalise to current cohorts, with attention to the post-pandemic context.

Comment 9: Consider adding a theoretical framework such as Astin’s inputs, environment, outcomes.

Author response: We added a concise mapping to Astin’s inputs, environment, outcomes that organises practical actions and is explicitly framed as heuristic, consistent with reflexive qualitative analysis.

Comment 10: Formatting issues remain.

Author response: We standardised fonts, avoided starting sentences with numerals, and ensured non indented quotations follow the journal’s format.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sincerely addressing my previous feedback. In the revised manuscript, further changes have been made to the introduction, discussion, and limitations; however, my initial concerns remain unresolved. While this study aims to examine changes in students’ experiences and perceptions in higher education, the novelty of the findings and their contribution to existing research are not clearly established. The recommendations are limited to a general overview of institutional support services and do not appear to be convincingly grounded in the data. Moreover, presenting a cross-sectional design as a quasi-longitudinal study raises significant concerns about the validity of the results. I strongly recommend conducting a follow-up study, even with a smaller sample, to track students’ perceptions and behaviors over time. Such an approach would allow for the identification of common patterns as well as distinctive factors underlying how students’ experiences contribute to their growth.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their careful re-reading of the manuscript and for raising these important points. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the study’s contribution, strengthen the connection between recommendations and data, and ensure the design is accurately represented. Below, we address each concern in turn. All revisions are visible in the tracked changes. 

Reviewer comment 1 

The novelty of the findings and their contribution to existing research are not clearly established. 

Author response 

We have expanded the Discussion to more clearly articulate the study’s contribution. Specifically, the manuscript now emphasizes the unique comparison between very early first-year experiences (weeks two to three) and final-year reflections within the same institutional context and academic year. This design highlights the rapid recalibration of expectations and the consolidation of strategies by the end of the degree. 

We have also situated our findings within current debates on student engagement, participation, and the evolving landscape of post-COVID higher education. These additions underscore the relevance and originality of our study. The Conclusion now explicitly reflects the novelty and broader significance of these insights for higher education research and practice. 

Amendments made Discussion, new text clarifying contribution, highlighting early recalibration, consolidation by third year, and post-COVID relevance.  Conclusion,  new text clarifying the novelty of this study. 

Reviewer comment 2 

The recommendations are limited to a general overview of institutional support services and are not convincingly grounded in the data. 

Author response 

We have revised the recommendations to more explicitly reflect the empirical basis of each suggestion. For instance: 

• First-year uncertainty in weeks two to three supports the call for early expectation-setting. 

• Mid-course adjustment narratives inform the recommendation for programme-level check-ins. 

• Student reflections on technology—both as a support and a distraction—shape our guidance on VLE and lecture recording use. 

These revisions aim to strengthen the alignment between thematic findings and practical recommendations. 

 

Amendments made 

Discussion, : recommendations restructured with explicit links to themes. 

 

Reviewer comment 3 

Presenting a cross-sectional design as a quasi-longitudinal study raises concerns about validity. 

Author response 

We have removed the term “pseudo-longitudinal,” which had been added in response to another reviewer, and now consistently describe the design as “cross-sectional, cohort separated.” We also revised the Limitations to make clear that the design does not track individual change and all inferences are interpretive rather than causal.  

Amendments made 

Title removed Peseduo-londtuninal as a term

Methods, clarified description of design. 

Limitations, revised wording to highlight interpretive, not causal, inference. 

 

Reviewer comment 4 

A follow-up longitudinal study is strongly recommended. 

Author response 

While we fully acknowledge the value of longitudinal approaches, rerunning the same focus groups this year is not feasible due to logistical constraints and ethical considerations related to participant re-engagement. However, we have added a note in the limitations section to propose a future follow-up study using a mixed-methods design that could incorporate both survey and interview data to track changes over time. This would allow for the identification of longitudinal patterns while building on the current dataset 

 We agree that longitudinal research would offer valuable insights. However, such a study is not feasible within the scope of the current project. It would require new ethical approval and at least one additional academic year for data collection and analysis, which exceeds the current timeframe. We have expanded the Limitations section to explain these constraints and to identify longitudinal research as a key direction for future inquiry. 

Amendments made 

Limitations, statement expanded to explain feasibility constraints and note as future direction. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The many edits made during the revision process has made this paper much stronger. There are many typos throughout, which I have tried to highlight but a very careful review is needed. I've made some comments on the attached draft. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviwer: The many edits made during the revision process has made this paper much stronger. There are many typos throughout, which I have tried to highlight but a very careful review is needed. I've made some comments on the attached draft.  

Author response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their kind words regarding the improvements made during revision and for their attentive reading of the manuscript. We appreciate the time taken to highlight typographical issues and provide detailed comments on the draft. A thorough proofread has now been completed to address all identified errors, and we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure consistency and clarity throughout. We hope the revised version reflects this attention to detail and meets the journal’s editorial standards. 

Amendments Made  

• Lines 87-89 removed text as requested  

• Lines 93-96 edited further for clarity and moved final point to limitations  

• Line 132 – yes, this study was conducted a large Russel group university  

• Line 180-187 – moved section to limitations as suggested.  

• Line 300 - wording should read eloquently rather than elaborately, this has been amended 

• the other highlighted errors have been corrected but tracked changes not used as these were very minor 

• appendix material, this is now referred to in the methodology  

• Full manuscript: comprehensive proofreading and correction of typographical errors. 

• Tracked changes: all reviewer-identified issues addressed, and additional refinements made for clarity and consistency