Comparing the Impact of Non-Cognitive Skills in STEM and Non-STEM Contexts in Kazakh Secondary Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Many thanks for the development of such an insightful and enriching paper on non-cognitive skills in educational contexts. In the following lines you will find my review on your manuscript: 

1) The abstract gives an overview and scope of the research problem. It also outlines the main methodological approaches and the importance of the topic for the development of new concepts, theories and applications in education. 

2) The theoretical and conceptual frameworks provide a coherent and deep literature review on the topic. It elaborates not only on the importance on cognitive and non-cognitive skills in secondary education, but also on the methodological and historical relevance for dividing subjects in STEM and non-STEM categories. Furthermore, this section outlines the main results on scales and instruments that try to deepen into this topic, and the gaps that are still present in the current academic research. 

3) The context of the study is well developed as it explains how STEM schools are popular in several countries. Although, I suggest to provide examples of other countries in order to understand how Kazakhstan has developed its own public policy on STEM education. 

4) The methodological section (including instruments of data gathering, analysis and interpretation, and participants characteristics) is detailed and presents strong arguments on the scope of the research. 

5) Instruments validation provides an interesting overview on how the items were assessed. Moreover, it presents the consistency of the project. 

6) The statistical analysis is well developed, including both descriptive and inferential perspectives. It also outlines tables and figures that help in the presentation and synthesis of the main results. 

7) Discussion section is one of the most valuable for this study, as it does elaborate on the practical and theoretical implications of the research. It also explains how the study gaps were considered for the development of this study and some key elements that could be analyzed in future investigations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Your detailed and constructive comments are greatly appreciated, and we are thankful for your time and effort in reviewing our work. Your remarks have not only affirmed the value of our research but have also provided us with clear guidance on how to strengthen and improve the manuscript further. We are particularly grateful for your recognition of the theoretical and methodological frameworks and your suggestions for enhancing the discussion and contextualization of our findings.

In the following sections, we will address each of your comments in detail, outlining the steps we have taken to incorporate your valuable feedback into the revised version of the paper.

Thank you once again for your time, effort, and contributions to improving our research.

Sincerely,
The Research Team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

 

Thank you for submitting the manuscript titled “Comparing the Impact of Non-Cognitive Skills in STEM and 2 Non-STEM Contexts in Kazakh Secondary Education” to the Education Sciences journal. 

Please see below for some suggestions: 

1- The manuscript provides a well-contextualized background that aligns the study with previous research on non-cognitive skills in academic achievement. However, while the introduction is thorough, some areas could be streamlined for conciseness without losing essential details. The manuscript covers a broad theoretical spectrum but could enhance its focus by explicitly tying certain theoretical frameworks to the study’s objectives. Suggestions for improvement:

• Further synthesizing the theoretical background to be more succinct would improve clarity. While it is comprehensive, removing repetitive sections and focusing on the most relevant research on non-cognitive skills and academic achievement, particularly in STEM versus non-STEM contexts, would also be helpful.
• Consider reorganizing the literature review to provide clearer connections between previous studies and the current research objectives.

2- The research questions and hypotheses are clearly articulated, and the methodology is described in sufficient detail. The study uses a robust design that includes regression and mediation analyses, which are appropriate for investigating the relationships between non-cognitive skills and academic performance. Suggestions for improvement:

• Although the hypotheses are clearly defined, stating them earlier in the manuscript may be beneficial to ensure they are highlighted as part of the research framework.
• Clarify the rationale behind selecting the specific non-cognitive skills for both the student self-assessment and teacher assessments. This will help justify the methodological choices more robustly.
• Expand on why Kazakhstan’s context is significant for this research. Although this context is mentioned, more emphasis on its uniqueness and relevance to global education discourse would strengthen the justification for the study.

3- The discussion section effectively ties the results back to the research questions and hypotheses. However, while the arguments are generally coherent, some points in the discussion could be expanded to draw out the implications of the findings more comprehensively, particularly in terms of policy and practical applications. Suggestions for improvement:

• Expand on the discussion of how these findings could be applied in different educational settings beyond Kazakhstan, making the conclusions more relevant to a global audience.
• Consider providing a more critical reflection on the study's limitations. This is briefly mentioned, but a more detailed discussion of potential biases or limitations related to sample size, regional focus, or measurement tools would balance the discussion.
• Strengthen the discussion on how the mediating role of teacher assessments contributes to the literature on educational psychology, especially in relation to the development of non-cognitive skills.

4- The results are presented clearly, with appropriate use of tables and statistical analyses. The use of regression and mediation analysis is well-executed, and the results are easy to follow. However, there is some redundancy in the presentation of statistical data. Suggestions for improvement:

• Condense the presentation of statistical data. For example, consider combining tables where appropriate or summarizing less critical statistics in the text rather than presenting them in full.
• Add more narrative to accompany the results, ensuring that key findings are presented and interpreted in the context of the study’s objectives and previous research.

5- The manuscript is adequately referenced, and the citations cover a broad range of relevant literature. However, some of the more recent studies in the field of non-cognitive skills in education could be included to provide a more up-to-date theoretical grounding. Suggestions for improvement:

• Incorporate recent literature on non-cognitive skills, particularly studies published within the last five years that explore similar topics in different educational contexts.
• Ensure that references to foundational studies in the field of non-cognitive skills (such as those on grit, growth mindset, and self-regulation) are highlighted more explicitly in the literature review.

6- The conclusions are logically derived from the findings, but they could benefit from further elaboration on how these findings specifically contribute to educational psychology and STEM education. Suggestions for improvement:

• Expand on how the study contributes to the understanding of non-cognitive skills in secondary education and explicitly state the practical implications for educators and policymakers.
• Include recommendations for future research that build on the current study, particularly regarding developing educational interventions aimed at enhancing non-cognitive skills in diverse educational contexts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Moderate editing of the English language is required. Minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasings could benefit from revision for clarity. Overall, the writing is comprehensible but could be polished to enhance readability and flow. Suggestions for improvement:

• A thorough proofreading and copy-editing pass is recommended to improve sentence structure and eliminate any redundant language.
• Ensure that technical terms are consistently defined and used throughout the manuscript.

 

Best,

Your Peer 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to extend our deepest appreciation and gratitude for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript titled “Comparing the Impact of Non-Cognitive Skills in STEM and Non-STEM Contexts in Kazakh Secondary Education.” Your insightful comments and constructive feedback have provided valuable guidance, and we believe that implementing your suggestions will significantly enhance the quality and clarity of our study.

We have carefully considered each of your recommendations and made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to the points you raised, outlining how we have addressed them. We hope that these changes meet your expectations and improve the overall contribution of our study.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and for helping us refine and improve our work.

Sincerely,
The Research Team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf