Effects of Socio-Academic Intervention on Student Performance in Vulnerable Groups

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an outstanding piece, built on well-grounded research.

It is really a strong contribution.

The one area I encourage the authors to consider is that the discussion/conclusion is undercooked. I believe some of the claims of the recommendations need to be more fully developed to honour the data. For example, in the claims about why students struggle the statement:

 a) lack of guidance and prior training of students;

b) inadequate study plan design;

c) poor monitoring of students, especially those who experience failure from the beginning;

d) low quality of teaching;

e) low academic performance of students due to lack of ability, study techniques, effort, or motivation;

f) an inadequate level of demand on the part of the teaching staff;

g) the need to reconcile domestic or paid work outside the university with studies; and

h) a lack of social integration in the university environment. Prevention and retention programmes should be based on improving these aspects to reduce failure and abandonment  of studies on the part of the students. 

The last sentence needs more teasing out.  I suggest this the case throughout the Discussion. More specifics and detail to honor the great data.

This is fine work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research topic has a very strong impact on the student performance from vulnerable groups hence, its relevance. It is well structured with topic, research questions, aligning which makes it flow very well.

However, the data collections/Measurements should be revised. No detailed information about research tools, validity and develop frameworks describing the knowledge. In other words, the development process of the questionnaire not well discussed.

Another point, reference list needs updating with last five year published papers and SCOPUS-WoS papers. Author should update the references.

The strengths of the paper are as follows:

• Tables and graphics clarify the results.
• Generally good structure of the text.
• The chapters Discussion and Conclusion consequently take up the researched questions and topics in terms of internal consistency of the text.

* Tables and graphics clarify the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript considers a  socio-academic intervention on student performance from vulnerable groups.

The topic is interesting but I think some points can be improved in the manuscript.

The definition and / or selection of vulnerable students to be considered for the intervention is not clear to me.

In addition, in the Introduction section (1.1. Previous studies) only some references to cases in Chile are presented.

Some minor details to check:

• Table 1, Table 3: it appears CP and I think it should be PC (from Pilot Course)
• Line 357, Line 438: it says Figure 3 and I think it should be Figure 7

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf