Antecedents Predicting Students’ Active Use of Learning Strategies in Schools of Low SES Context within the Framework of Self-Determination Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper „Antecedents Predicting Students’ Active Use of Learning Strategies in Schools of Low SES Context Within the Framework of Self-Determination Theory” presents an empirical study about how students use learning strategies based on how teacher support them (relationship with students, their autonomy support). Findings show that use of learning strategies is dependent on how students feel supported by teachers.
The paper is well written and presents an interesting contribution to the field. There are only some minor issues:
Abstract: Your state “Students’ use of learning strategies in a sample of both boys and girls predict teacher support, student cohesiveness, and perceived autonomy support.” But you predicted learning strategies. Thus, you should state “are predicted by”.
Method: Please provide Cronbach’s Alpha for each scale/subscale. Do not run multiple t-test in gender differences – use instead a MANOVA in order to avoid Alpha error accumulation.
Please provide mean age and SD of participants.
In general, I am not sure about the role of low SES in this study, because there is no reference group here (with high SES). Thus, I wonder if this can be taken out?
Author Response
We would like to thank a lot for the time that the Editor and the reviewers have spent on reading our manuscript and provided meaningful suggestions to improve it further. Your comments allowed us to take a new look at our research and deepened our experience in writing manuscript. We appreciate your efforts to make our manuscript better. Thank you very much. The changes which we made in the manuscript regarding reviewers’ comments are highlighted in the paper by using red colored text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript investigates the role of learner relatedness and autonomy, in the motivation to use particular learning strategies in adolescents (7th -10th grade). The manuscript is well documented, clearly written, and presents clear-cut results. A few clarifications and/or improvements will make it acceptable for publication.
Most questionnaire questions, which are used in the study, are taken from the literature (WIHIC, LCQ), but the questions assessing Learning strategies, are not published or referenced. Given the subject of the paper, it would be necessary to see details of the relevant questionnaire items, in particular to see whether the learning strategies adopted are strategies reflecting self-regulated learning. It is suggested to supply (an English translation of) the nine items in this part of the questionnaire as an Appendix or Table. Even the primary results may be interesting for teachers in secondary education.
It must be completely clear that ‘teacher support’, as used in the manuscript, is ‘perceived teacher support’ only. It can, therefore, not be ascertained whether the teachers in the study are using autonomy-supportive teaching strategies. This can be considered a limitation of the study and could have affected the results. Furthermore, the role of controlled vs. autonomous motivation is not investigated or discussed.
Given the interesting differences in results of boys and girls (lines 217 sqq.) and the discussion about same-gender vs. other-gender relationships between students and teachers (lines 275-284), the lack of information about teacher gender can be seen as a ‘missed opportunity’. I don’t know whether this information is available in the data, but I would certainly suggest inclusion in future studies.
The context of the study (general education schools, 7th – 10th grade) is not completely clear for an international audience. Some more details of the Lithuanian (secondary) school system and an indication of student age could be helpful. How is ‘low social, economic and cultural context’ (line 146) defined, and was the study restricted to a particular subset of schools (how and why)?
Author Response
We would like to thank a lot for the time that the Editor and the reviewers have spent on reading our manuscript and provided meaningful suggestions to improve it further. Your comments allowed us to take a new look at our research and deepened our experience in writing manuscript. We appreciate your efforts to make our manuscript better. Thank you very much. The changes which we made in the manuscript regarding reviewers’ comments are highlighted in the paper by using red colored text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents the results of an interesting research that aims to predict the Students' Active Use of Learning Strategies in Schools of Low socioeconomic status Context. The introduction is accurate, including the most relevant aspects of the topic. The bibliographical references are up to date. The research methodology is correct and in line with the objectives, as well as the data analysis and conclusions.
One recommendation I would make to the authors is that more information could be provided on the psychometric properties of the measurement instruments used, in addition to internal consistency, such as factorial validity, predictive validity... of the adaptation of the questionnaires to Lithuanian. On the other hand, Cronbach's Alpha has limitations in the study of internal consistency when it is carried out with factors with many items, and also in large samples. It is more reliable to use the McDonald Omega coefficient (if possible). This could be provided if it is measured with the study sample itself.
Author Response
We would like to thank a lot for the time that the Editor and the reviewers have spent on reading our manuscript and provided meaningful suggestions to improve it further. Your comments allowed us to take a new look at our research and deepened our experience in writing manuscript. We appreciate your efforts to make our manuscript better. Thank you very much. The changes which we made in the manuscript regarding reviewers’ comments are highlighted in the paper by using red colored text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
