An Environmental Resource within the Job Demands-Resources Model: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy between Properties of the Learning Environment and Academic Engagement
Takuma Nishimura
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigated a mediating role of self-efficacy between the properties of the learning environment and academic engagement. The logic of the manuscript, hypotheses, and analyses are clear. Several comments for improvement are shown below.
Major comments
1. Same as the authors, I was surprised by the result about the negative relation between “extent” and engagement. Meanwhile, I was concerned about the result with respect to the connection to previous findings and theories. Do any findings support the result? Additionally, could you re-confirm the scoring procedure regarding the score of extent because it was negatively formulated?
2. Regarding the analysis part, please show the multiple regression as model 3 by simultaneously putting four independent variables (compatibility, extent, being away, fascination) on the regression equation. I request that the authors show a mediation model with putting independent variables at the same time and estimate direct and indirect effect estimations. The current version of the medication analysis did not control the effect of other independent variables.
Minor comments
3. Please use the double quotation mark (“”) instead of the single when the authors explain definitions or item examples (for example, ll.32-34, ll.195-196, ll.272-273…. etc.).
4. How was the scoring on sex, universities, and place of study? (male = 1, female = -1?)
5. Why didn’t the authors focus on three dimensions of academic engagement? Please justify using a single model of academic engagement, which the authors have done. Moreover, it is better to add further explanation regarding the Utrecht work engagement scale in terms of the three dimensions of engagement.
6. I can see a lot of abbreviations in Tables (for example, Univers. in Table 1, CO, SE, ENG in Table 4 …. etc.). They may confuse potential readers.
7. If possible, it is better to mention mediating processes whether partial mediation or complete mediation.
8. wellbeing → well-being
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.
Kind Regards,
Diego Bellini
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article uses clear language, and a relevant and updated bibliography.
The theoretical framework explains in detail and progressively the main concepts of the research, including the JD-R Model.
The study of the impact of restorativeness on self-efficacy and academic engagement in university students is a highly original approach. It could also be applied to teachers or any other educational agent at any other educational level.
In order to respond to the complexity of the conceptual approach, the questionnaire used appropriately integrates three different scales, although it would be convenient to include the questions in the article. Moreover, it would have been interesting to have a larger sample (188 students) and from different countries (as the article itself points out). In any case, the results are relevant and provide an answer to the research objective.
Although the discussion could be somewhat more in-depth, perhaps by comparing the results obtained in this work with those obtained by other authors in a more concrete way, it is clear and constructive. In this sense, the article proposes strategies to involve students, claiming the importance of the environment and its properties. Finally, the article itself includes those aspects or factors that should be further investigated.
The complexity of the conceptual approach of this study does not preclude clear and concise conclusions, which is why its publication should be supported.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we appreciate your positive evaluation of our work.
Thank you very much.
All the best,
Diego Bellini
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done a great job.
