Sex differences in self-perceived employability and self-motivated strategies for learning in Polish first-year students.

Self-perceived employability (SPE) is defined as the ability to attain sustainable employment appropriate to one's qualification level (Rothwell 2008) and perceived as a crucial factor in university graduates' career development. Meanwhile, University students are mainly assessed through the lens of academic achievement, which depend, inter alia, on the self-motivated strategies for learning (MSL). Firstly, we tested hypothesised sex differences in SPE's and MSL's factors in a group of the first-year university students (n = 600) in a Central European context. Our analyses revealed that female students, despite their higher results in MSL's factors (self-regulation, learning strategies, intrinsic values, self-efficacy) presented lower internal SPE than male students. Secondly, we explored how much general SPE can be predicted from general MSL, taking into account sex as a moderator, finding that sex factor was not significant as a moderator. We can consider general MSL as a good predictor of general SPE in both sex groups. The results will provide evidence to support HEI curricular development and strategies for workplace attitude change to address existing sex inequalities. In addition, our findings relating to MSL will provide evidence to support the development of approaches to enhancing student employability with additional long term benefits in mental health and well-being.

Introduction

Self-perceived employability (SPE) is a construct encompassing both the subjective perception of opportunities offered by the external labor market and the perception of oneself as being able to find a job appropriate to one’s qualifications [1]. Changing social perceptions of the value of a university degree [2] may potentially harm students’ SPE. SPE correlates with numerous personal and social factors [3]. Studies based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) showed that personal agency (e.g., self-regulated learning and self-efficacy) is vital in the career decision-making process [3, 4].

In higher education, students are assessed mainly through their academic achievements, which depend highly on motivation orientation towards learning. Pintrich and Groot’s [5] social-cognitive framework of knowledge assumes that the self—motivated strategies for learning (MSL) are situational traits and can be learned and managed by the individual. This suggests that monitoring MSL in students from their first year of study is of great importance. It allows diagnosing what attributes and abilities students bring to the university from education at an earlier level to implement appropriate tutoring activities.

Our literature review revealed that there are reports of sex differences in MSL [1, 6–15]. However, studies carried out in different countries revealed mixed results as to sex differences in SPE [16-19]. We anticipate that these conflicting results may be due to cross-cultural differences.

The aim of our research was to test the predicted sex differences in SPE and MSL in Polish first-year students. An original contribution is that we aimed to explore the possibility of predicting SPE based on MSL in women and men in a Central European context. Hence, the paper aims to identify strategies to help students and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in a challenging graduate employment context.

We conducted our study with 600 first-year university students. We focused on first-year students as it was considered that their MSL could be improved during the later stages of their higher-level education. In the next section, we present the component factors of SPE and MSL and consider potential sex differences in each case. Following that, we introduce the predicted connection between SPE and MSL in both groups of female and male students.

Self-Perceived Employability (SPE) factors

SPE consists of both external and internal factors [2, 16]. External SPE factors include characteristic features and overall state of the local labor market and specific qualifications [2, 20], the perceived prestige of the chosen field of study, the subjective availability of jobs in the chosen field of study, and the perceived adjustment of the competences held to the requirements of employers. Internal SPE factors include the level of professional experience, self-efficacy, coping abilities, self-management of one’s career path, mastery of one’ profession, the optimal use of competencies [21] and career identity [22].

Sex differences in SPE factors

Research shows conflicting results when it comes to the existence of sex differences in SPE. On the one hand, Spanish studies indicate higher SPE of men compared to women [16, 17]. Vargas et al. [16] found that among Spanish undergraduate students (N = 1502), men possessed higher SPE than their female colleagues. Another Spanish study conducted by Cifre et al. [17] also revealed sex differences in SPE in the case of employed (N = 181) and unemployed (N = 246) Spanish young adults (i.e., below 30y.). Employed young men perceived their internal SPE with the current employer as higher than women did. In these studies, employed young men perceived that they had more employment opportunities in their current place of employment than young employed women. On the other hand, American and British studies demonstrated–respectively: no sex differences [18, 19] or sex differences in the opposite direction, i.e., employed British women presented higher SPE in contrast to employed men [20] in a profession (human resources) that had a female majority. The explanation of these conflicting results may be due to cultural factors.

According to research based on Hofstede’s model [23], Poland is more similar in the collectivism-individualism dimension to Spain than the United Kingdom and the United States. Smith [24] also suggested that Poland and Spain are more collectivist societies. We suggest that a predominance of traditional notions of the male bread-winner may translate into a lower SPE in Polish women than Polish men. From this, we may reasonably assume that the results in our study would be similar to those obtained in Spain. Hence: We predicted that Polish male students would declare higher SPE then Polish female students (H1).

MSL factors

Pintrich and Groot [5] created the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) based on self-regulated learning notion (see also [15-17]); cyclical phase model of self-regulation (see [25]). They considered self-regulated learning as having two dimensions: 1. motivation and 2. learning strategies, in which the motivators are intrinsic-extrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. The learning strategies consist of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, learning resources, and management strategies.

The intrinsic value of learning signifies interest in and the perceived value of learning itself. Self-regulated learning includes students’ metacognitive strategies for planning, monitoring, and modifying their cognition (Pintrich and Groot, 1990, p. 33). The construct of self-efficacy is defined after Bandura [26] as the individual’s judgment regarding the ability to perform a task at a certain level with the required behavior to achieve targeted performance.

Some studies have emphasized that self-efficacy is one of the best predictors of students’ success [5, 27, 28] along with achievement motivation [27], emotions that arise in both success and failure [20], cognition, self-regulated learning, and test anxiety [5]. Others stress the importance of the intrinsic value of learning. Compared to self-efficacy, intrinsic value along with instrumental value might be a stronger predictor of chosen self-regulated learning strategies (memorization, elaboration, and control strategies) [29]. Furthermore, it may be that even if students understand self-regulated learning strategies and possess self-efficacy in using them, they might not use them in the non-experimental, everyday context because they are not convinced about its usefulness [30].

Sex differences in MSL factors

Research in a range of cultural contexts has repeatedly shown that female students tended to surpass male students in terms of the claimed use of motivated learning strategies [1, 6–10]. A study amongst 185 Malaysian college students (84 men and 101 women) who chose pure sciences, mathematics, or higher mathematics indicated that girls reported a markedly higher level of self-regulatory learning [9]. Al Khatib’s [7] study involving 404 United Arab Emirates (UAE) college students (204 men and 200 women) indicated that the UAE female college students displayed significantly higher means of self-regulated learning than their [Agnieszka3] male counterparts. Bembenutty [11] also found that American female students showed higher self-regulation ability and outperformed men in terms of the diversity of learning strategies used in a college biology course in New York (see also [12]). Women also appear to have higher declared anxiety than men [7, 10, 13, 14]. Hence, in our study, we predicted that Polish first-year female students would also outperform men in the case of learning strategies (H2) and self-regulation (H3) [2], and would declare higher test anxiety (H4). A further study revealed that female students are more intrinsically motivated [31]. According to Velayutham et al. [15] in relation to 719 boys and 641 girls across grades 8, 9, and 10 in 5 public schools in Perth, Western Australia, the influence of task on self-regulation was statistically significant for men only. Considering motivation factors, men seem to have a higher perceived self-efficacy [10, 13, 14]. Therefore, we further predicted that Polish first-year male students in contrast to female students would gain lower scores in the intrinsic value scale (H5), at the same time getting higher scores of MSL’s declared self-efficacy (H6).

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and the predicted relationship between SPE and MSL

SCCT highlights that the individual perspective is central to socio-cognitive mechanisms in influencing vocational interest, choices, and career achievement [3, 4]. Personal factors such as self-efficacy and outcome expectations are essential to influence individual career actions and development [4]. Chin and Shen’s [32] study revealed that self-efficacy is a crucial factor in determining individual career management and how individuals build confidence and perceive their abilities in career management. On this basis, we predicted that MSL’s self-efficacy would have positive relationships with the first-year university students’ internal SPE (H7). Lu [33] revealed that self-regulated learning, a notable learning skill in MSL, is another individual-related factor that has the potential to augment the extent of employability. Thus, we predicted that self-regulated learning has positive relationships with the first-year University students’ SPE (H8). Taking all the above into account, we assumed that MSL would be a significant predictor of SPE in women and men (H9). Moreover, taking into account the assumed sex differences in terms of both MSL and SPE, we also Investigated whether sex may be a moderating factor for the prediction of SPE based on MSL.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted among first-year students, in the first semester of their studies, of the humanities and social sciences faculties in a university town in Poland. We randomly sampled 600 students from the social sciences and humanities departments, including 431 women and 169 men. The number of male and female students in the study is uneven but this mirrors the student population of the country. The average age of our participants was 19.93 years (SD = 2.33), women—19.71 years (SD = 1.45), men—20.46 years (SD = 3.69).

The Polish adaptation of the Self Perceived Employability scale (SPE)

From among a range of available measures of SPE [34, 35], we choose the self-perceived employability (SPE) scale designed for undergraduate students in the UK [1]. This particular SPE scale has been translated in a wide range of other cultural contexts where it has proved to be robust and reliable [36]. The Polish version of SPE [36] is based on Rothwell’s scale [20]. The psychometric properties of the Polish version are good: Cronbach’s alpha is 0.76. It consists of 6 items to which participants respond on a Likert-type scale with anchors from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). In previous studies, scale items have been grouped into two factors: internal SPE (the perceived impact of individual attributes on employer demand for individuals in a particular field) and external SPE (broadly, perceptions of the state of the external labor market and the demand for one’s subject).

The Polish adaptation of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)

To examine MSL, we utilized the MSLQ by Pintrich and Groot [5] in the Polish language adaptation [37]. The MSLQ is a self-report instrument for students from 12 years old in which respondents assess the matching of each item to their MSL on a 7-point Likert scale (where one means ‘disagree entirely’ and seven means ‘totally agree’). The MSLQ consists of 44 items in 5 subscales measure students’ motivational orientations: (1) Self-Efficacy (9 items considering the confidence that one’s abilities are sufficient to succeed), (2) Intrinsic Value (9 items regarding the reason one engages in the task), (3) Test Anxiety (4 items referring to the emotional aspect of the task), (4) Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (13 items regarding cognitive strategies that students use to learn, remember, and understand the material) and (5) Self-Regulation (9 items considering students’ effort management strategies and metacognitive strategies for planning, monitoring, and modifying their cognition). The scale is for both individual and group studies. In previous studies, respondents typically have unlimited time for completion.

The MSQL has been adapted in addition to Polish in several other countries around the world (e.g., see [38, 39]). In all versions of the tool adaptation, Cronbach’s α coefficient was above 0.70. The reliability of the Polish language adaptation of the entire questionnaire, well as its scales, measured using the Cronbach’s α coefficient, is satisfactory (0.89 in the test, and 0.92 in the retest after 14 days) [37]. There were significant r-Pearson correlations between the scales’ results obtained in the test and retest phases, which were consistent with the theoretical assumptions of the tool.

Procedure and ethical consideration

Participants received a short initial instruction for the study and the students had to express their informed consent in writing. They then completed the questionnaires either in-person or online. The study was entirely voluntary and participants had the right to withdraw at any time. The survey followed the ethical rules of the American Psychological Association. Ethical Committee of Pedagogy Institute John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin authorized the study (approval number:2020-10-06/1).

Statistical analyzes

All analyzes in this study were conducted using IBM SPSS 25 for Windows. The multiple imputations technique [40] was used to estimate values for 1% of missing data. We used MANOVA to test H1-H6 about sex differences at the level of SPE and MSL factors. We calculated R Pearsons’s test for correlation between SPE and MSL (H7-H8) and to test the MANOVA assumption that the dependent variables would be correlated with each other [41]. In the last step, we performed Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses to test H9 about the possibility to predict SPE based on MSL and to investigate whether sex may be a moderating factor for the prediction of SPE based on MSL. In this last step of analyzes, we averaged separately SPE and MSL factors into general SPE and MSL. All data associate with this research is available without restrictions (CC BY 4.0) can be accessed: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16590032.v1.

Results

Before conducting the MANOVA, a series of Pearson correlations were performed between all of the dependent variables in order to test the MANOVA assumption that the dependent variables would be correlated with each other in the moderate range [41]. As can be seen in Table 1, a meaningful pattern of correlations was observed amongst most of the dependent variables, suggesting the appropriateness of a MANOVA. Additionally, the Box’s M value of 50.79 was associated with a p value of .007, which was interpreted as non-significant based on Huberty and Petoskey’s [42] guideline (i.e., p < .005). Thus, the covariance matrices between the groups were assumed to be equal for the purposes of the MANOVA.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Self efficacy	43.72	7.24	—
2. Intrinsic value	48.92	7.07	.59**	—
3. Test anxiety	16.95	5.78	-.24**	.03	—
4. Strategy use	68.18	9.50	.37**	.59**	.13**	—
5. Self regulation	42.64	7.12	.38**	.55**	-.04	.64**	—
6. External SPE	13.88	2.93	.23**	.36**	.10*	.26**	.28**	—
7. Internal SPE	7.04	1.59	.45**	.28**	-.24**	.13**	.02**	.17**	—

* < .05.

** < .01.

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the hypothesis that there would be the differences between sex (male and female) and self-perceived employability and the self—motivated strategies for learning scores.

A statistically significant MANOVA effect was obtained, Pillais’ Trace = .14, F (7, 592) = 14.69, p < .001. The multivariate effect size was estimated at .148, which implies that 14.8% of the variance in the canonically derived dependent variable was accounted for 207 by sex (Table 2). The Levene’s test results showed that p-value for all dependent variables is lower then 0.05, so we have to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the error variances of dependent variable are equal across groups.

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and one-way MANOVA.

Measure	Female		Male		F(1, 598)	p	η2
	M	SD	M	SD
Self efficacy	43.33	7.04	44.72	7.65	4.53	.034	.008
Intrinsic value	49.36	6.92	47.80	7.34	5.93	.015	.010
Test anxiety	17.64	5.52	15.18	6.05	22.81	.001	.037
Strategy use	69.94	8.95	63.70	9.40	57.23	.001	.087
Self regulation	43.22	6.88	41.15	7.51	10.41	.001	.017
External	14.00	2.88	13.59	3.05	2.30	.129	.004
Employability
Internal	6.91	1.57	7.38	1.61	10.61	.001	.017
Employability

Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at a .025 (.05/2) alpha level. Results demonstrated that there was sufficient evidence to determine significant effect of sex on intrinsic value, test anxiety, strategy use, self-regulation and internal SPE. In case of self-efficacy F(1, 598) = 4.53, p = .034, partial eta squared = .008 and external employability F(1, 598) = 2.30, p = .129, partial eta squared = .004, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no differences between males and females.

Female score statistically significantly higher than men on the scales of intrinsic value, test anxiety and strategy use. Male, on the other hand, are characterized by higher scores only on the internal employability scale (Table 3).

Table 3

Descriptive statistics and 95%Confidence Intervals (CI) for Mean values (M) of tested variables in women and men.

Variable	Female			Male
	M	SE	CI (95%)	M	SE	CI (95%)
Self efficacy	43.33	.348	(42.64, 44.01)	44.72	.556	(43.63, 45.81)
Intrinsic value	49.36	.339	(48.69, 50.02)	47.80	.542	(46.74, 48.86)
Test anxiety	17.64	.274	(17.10, 18.18)	15.18	.437	(14.32, 16.04)
Strategy use	69.94	.438	(69.08, 70.80)	63.70	.699	(62.33, 65.07)
Self regulation	43.22	.340	(42.56, 43.89)	41.15	.544	(40.09, 42.22)
External	14.00	.141	(13.72, 14.28)	13.59	.226	(13.15, 14.04)
SPE
Internal	6.91	.076	(6.76, 7.06)	7.38	.122	(7.14, 7.62)
SPE

Moderation

Moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to test whether gender moderated the relationship between the self—motivated strategies for learning and the self-perceived employability. Table 4 provide the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis to predict employability. The regressions showed that gender did not moderate the relations between the self-motivated and employability (β = .169, p = .563). Only strategies for learning is a predictor of employability (β = .418, p < .000) explaining 17% of the variance.

Table 4

Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for gender moderation of self–Motivated strategies for learning and self-perceived employability.

Variable		Model	1		Model 2			Model 3
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Strategies for Learning	.061	.006	.407*
Strategies for Learning				.063	.006	.418*
Gender				.597	.314	.072
Strategies for Learning							.061	.007	.403*
Gender							-.813	2.45	-.098
Gender x Strategies for Learning-							.007	.012	.169
R2		.166			.171			.171
ΔR2		.166			.005			.000

*p < .001.

Discussion

The present study has evaluated the SPE and MSL among first-year Polish male and female students (H1-H6). In general, our results confirmed sex differences in both SPE and MSL. According to our prediction, we have identified a higher level of internal SPE (H1) and MSL’s self-efficacy (H6) for Poles than Polish women. Our findings of sex differences in MSL’s self-efficacy are in an agreement with other studies [10, 13, 14]. Spanish research also revealed advantages in perceived men’s SPE over women’s SPE [16, 17]. Lower internal SPE in women than men in both Poland and Spain can mirror the predominance of traditional notions of the male bread-winner in both rather collectivist societies [23]. Sex differences in the internal SPE and MSL’s self-efficacy revealed in our study may be connected with data taken from Polish population research, showing that Poles’ earning expectations are higher than Polish women’s. In 2014, unemployed men declared average expectations of earnings as about 13–15% higher than women [43]. Moreover, data revealed that men are more likely to choose to run a business in comparison to women and also to select a full-time job more often [44]. Lower women’s internal SPE and MSL’s self-efficacy may be related to employers’ and own expectations related to women and men’s job opportunities. Employers who hold traditional values may recruit and hire men and women in line with their beliefs about what are gender-appropriate jobs [45]. From the point of view of individual perceptions, both sex beliefs about their desire for gender roles may influence their SPE and MSL’s self-efficacy, first career choices and then their general approach to the labor market [46]. At the same time, we confirmed that women in comparison to men ranked higher in terms of MSL strategy use (H2), self-regulation (H3), and intrinsic values (H5), having also higher test anxiety (H4). Worldwide studies showed that female students tended to surpass male students in terms of the claimed use of motivated learning strategies [1, 6–10]. The lowered motivation to learn in men can be associated with the situation in Polish higher education, where women outnumber men [43] and social and employer perceptions of the falling value of the higher education degree itself [47]. Our results can be associated with the fact that in 2014, Polish women had higher education more often than men. Among Polish women, as much as 24% could have a university diploma against 14% of all Poles. Among all Poles with a Master’s degree (10%), Polish women outnumbered men (13% against 6% among men). For the 19–24 demographic group, in 2014, there were c. 963,000 Polish students; of which c. 582,000 thousand were Polish women (60.44%) in contrast to c. 381,000 Polish males (39.56%). In 2018, only 34% of Poles got a tertiary degree compared to 54% of Polish women (OECD, 2019) [48].

Also, we found that MSL can be treated as a predictor of the SPE (H9). Our results showed that MSL is a good predictor of the SPE in both female and male students. The higher the results of the MSL, the higher the SPE in both women and men. Furthermore, all MSL factors correlated with both external and internal SPE (H8). The strongest, positive relationship we noted between internal SPE and MSL’s self-efficacy (H7). In our male group of students, both factors gained higher scores than in the female group of students. In previous studies, it was pointed out that self-efficacy [32] and self-regulated learning [7] are crucial in determining a positive approach to personal career management. The importance of the individual perspective (e.g., self-regulated learning and self-efficacy) in the career decision-making process is central to the notion of Social Cognitive Career Theory [3, 4]. As Berntson and Markland [34] recognized, perceived employability is also important to subsequent health.

Implications

If we accept the suggestion that that MSL predicts SPE, we suggest that it is essential to carry out periodic measurements, modify the approach to students, and forecast students’ subsequent coping on the labor market. Students need to understand from the point of view of their well-being and future success that there is a relationship between their MSL and SPE and between SPE and career satisfaction [48]. Despite the huge proliferation of employability research around the world (see eg. [49]), aspects related to sex are under-explored. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Poland in particular this remains an under-researched area. For example, a recent McKinsey study [50] identified the existence of the gender gap and particular challenges but focused the analysis on the CEO level. By comparison, our research offers a unique contribution as it traces both the origins of the issues, as well as some potential solutions, back into embedded Polish social values and how these are perpetuated in the Polish higher education system. For younger men, intervention in the form of attitude training is needed to address the problems of motivation and persistence. Concerning the enduring inequalities facing women in the workplace and society, especially in traditionally conservative societies, work is needed to promote greater internal SPE and MSL’s self-efficacy among women. It is highly recommended for educators to use female students’ orientation towards reflective learning and their general willingness to participate in developmental activity reports to enhance their self-efficacy, stressing the relationship between MSL’s and SPE’s skills. Having reported gender inequality effects in MSL and SPE, we suggest that future research may further explore sex differences in embedded social values and their consequences in terms of engagement and attainment in different cultural contexts.

Study limitations

Although we found a positive relationship between students’ SPE and their MSL, it ought to be noted that we used a single measure at a given point in time. Motivation in the context of student learning may change over time thus it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study to test whether such occurred and whether it had a significant impact on self-perceived employability (for instance a comparative analysis of the results from the first year and last year of studies). In addition, further research could involve testing a more complex study model including variables that may moderate or mediate the relation between SPE and MSL, differentiated by sex. Indeed, future research could take more sophisticated interpretations of sex, gender and identity which have been explored, for example in Spain [17] but have yet to be explored in Poland or CEE. A final limitation relates to the research sample. In the future, it would be beneficial to derive a sample of students from several universities from different countries allowing broader generalization results.

18 Oct 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

César Leal-Costa, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

3. Please improve statistical reporting and refer to p-values as "p<.001" instead of "p=.000". Our statistical reporting guidelines are available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-statistical-reporting.

4. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript].

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-21-29167: The relationship between self - motivated strategies for learning and self-perceived employability in the first-year Polish male and female students

The paper aims at searching the connections between females and males’ self-motivated strategies for learning (MSQL) and employability of university students (n=600) in a Central European context. Analyses revealed significant differences in the patterns of correlation between male and female’s MSQL and employability (both internal and external). Females, despite their higher results in MSQL presented lower internal employability and general self-efficacy. According to the authors, their results will provide evidence to support HEI curricular development and workplaces attitude change to minimize existing sex inequalities.

Below are my comments for possible revision.

Major Points

Results

The authors tested 10 hypotheses in total- H1 to H7 were tested using the Independent t-test, while H8 to H10 were tested using Pearson’s Correlation. However, the authors go on to present an Intercorrelation of SPE and MLSD Factors in males and females. What is the rationale for doing this?

Also, what is the rationale for correlating MSLQ general with MSLQ factors? Certainly the correlations will be high because each of these factors contribute to the MSLQ general score. The same applies to the Intercorrelation of SPE.

Again what is the justification for the ‘sex difference in intercorrelations of MSLQ factors if the authors compared gender differences on the various variables using a t-test?

Three hypothesis, H8 to 10 predicted a relationship between specific variables and yet, the authors chose to correlate all their variable of study. Why did they not focus on the three hypothesis that had been stated? This makes it seem as though they are merely ‘fishing’ for results and therefore just decided to run as many analysis as they could to be able to generate several results.

Discussion

There is very scanty information on the discussion on H8 to H10. A lot more could have been said to explain the findings. Generally, most of the findings are not well discussed. How will the author explain their own findings and what do these findings mean?

Seven hypotheses are tested to compare males and females on several variables. There are 5 hypotheses which females scored higher than males but these are not discussed. Instead, the whole focus of the Discussion and Implications is on, and centered around the results of the two hypothesis where males scored higher than females. The question is why do the authors ignore all of these other results and just focus on the findings of 2 out of 10 hypotheses?

Generally, the focus of the Discussion seems to be all about how females presented low internal employability and general self-efficacy I find the discussion to be very biased and skewed because there were several other variables that females scored higher than males but these not discussed.

Page 10 Line 304- 310: Our results indicated that women’s mental barriers might be worse than any institutional barriers to their career advancement. Hence, there is a rising need to provide female students with psychological assistance. In the case when a person experiences learned helplessness, reflected in a sense of decreased efficiency, an appropriate intervention may involve exploring coping strategies. It is crucial to include in the higher education curriculum discussions about the psychological determinants of the underrepresentation of women in managerial positions rather than structural barriers.

What is the above assertion in reference to? Which of the study variable assessed, and which finding is it in reference to? I think this is far-fetched!

Implications

The ‘implications’ of the study is lengthier than the Discussion of results and I find that quite unusual. Again there are so many findings of several hypotheses that were confirmed in favour of females which the authors ignore.

Limitations

The authors do not discuss any limitations of the study. Note that every study has some limitations.

Minor Points

Introduction

SPE’s factors

Page 2 Line 32: External SPE factors include characteristic features of a local labour market and specific qualifications. The authors should list what some of these characteristic features of a local labour market are.

Line 88- Hence, in our study, we predicted that Polish first-year female students also

outperformed males in the case of learning strategies (H2). Use the correct tense.

The abbreviation EMP is not written in full in any part of the paper. Please specify what this stands for.

Method

Subject

It will be worth explaining how the 600 students were recruited, what sampling technique was used etc. and details about the participants such as examples of their subject of study.

The term ‘Participants’ should replace ‘Subjects’ as that is the more acceptable convention.

Polish adaptation of the self-perceived Employability Scale

Page 4 Line 130- - the authors indicates 6 items on the scale but yet lists a total of 8 items consisting of 3 internal and 5 external items.

The MSLQ

Page 4 Line 150: We considered our sample as learners whose approach to learning is still closer to school students than university students. What does closer to school students mean?

Procedure and ethical consideration

The authors should specify the name of the ethics committee where approval was obtained.

Best wishes.

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering me to review the article entitled "The relationship between self-motivated strategies for learning and self-perceived employability in Polish first-year students". The manuscript analyses the relationships between self-perceived employability and self-motivation for learning in first-year university students.

Title

I think it does not reflect well the central aim of the study, which is evident in the discussion and the implications of the results obtained. The key issue seems to be the difference between males and females.

Abstract

The abstract is confusing because at no point does it refer to self-perceived employability, focusing on the general concept of employability. On the other hand, it should refer to the fact that they are first-year students, since this is an aspect that the authors subsequently emphasise in a special way.

Introduction

The first sentence is too long and difficult to understand (lines 2-6).

Again, as in the title, more emphasis is placed on the relationships between self-perceived employability and self-motivated strategies for learning, rather than on the differences between men and women.

SPE’s factors

From line 33 to 36: sentence difficult to understand, too long.

This section gives data on the sample size of the studies that have been reviewed, which is of no interest in this case.

Line 49 to 52: the two sentences are redundant, try to unify.

In line 55, the authors write “We predicted that Polish males would declare higher SPE then Polish”. THEN is a spelling error, the correct word is THAN.

MSL’s factors

In this section, it would be advisable for authors to include more recent and highly relevant citations. For example:

1) http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.001

2) DOI: 10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.09.001

3) Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The educational psychology series. Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299-315). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

From line 73 to 74, the authors write: Others emphasise that a student's success will depend largely on the sense of self-efficacy, as well as the emotions that arise in both success and failure. I propose: Others stress that a student's success will largely depend on the sense of self-efficacy, as well as the emotions that arise in both success and failure [20].

Male and female differences in MSL factors

In line 99 there is a spelling error: MSLQ'a

Method

In the SUBJECTS section, it would have been advisable to include other socio-demographic variables.

In line 122, when the average age of women is given, there is an error: 19.7.1years. Remove the comma.

The Polish adaptation of the Self Perceived Employability Scale (SPE)

On line 131, correct the likert scale: the authors write from strongly disagree (1) to agree (5) strongly. It should be strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Also, the paragraph from line 132 to 142 needs to be revised, as it is too dense and confusing. It should be reworded to make it easier to read.

The MSLQ

Present the likert scale with a similar structure to the previous one, putting the numbers in brackets instead of text.

In line 150, when the authors say, "We considered our sample as learners whose approach to learning is still closer to school" they should refer to "High School". The self-regulation mechanisms linked to learning undergo important changes in adolescence with respect to the previous stage. On the other hand, I recommend that you consult two studies that highlight the false belief that university students are capable of self-regulating their learning and of being motivated to learn:

1) https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.191347686667042

2) https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.13.Special.129-150.2020

I recommend that the authors revise the description of the MSLQ to follow the same structure, i.e., if in the first three subscales they give a brief summary of the content of the subscales, it would also be relevant to do so for the other two. On the other hand, in line 156 they should remove "and students' learning strategies".

Procedure

In line 170, I assume they mean that the students had to express their "informed" consent in writing.

In line 171, there is an extra full stop after "online".

When the authors state that the survey had the University ethical aproval, do they mean that the University ethical committee authorised the study?

Results

The results section is perhaps the weakest point of this study, I believe that the data allow for a more robust research design and a methodological approach that goes beyond a mainly exploratory analysis through Pearson correlations. Especially given the conclusions and implications of the study. For example, a MANOVA.

On the other hand, too many tables are included when in some cases it would be more interesting to present the data in the text without resorting to tables with little elaboration and which do not follow APA standards. For example, Tables 2 and 5 would be dispensable. Table 3 is poorly developed and confusing, and its title is not even adequate. In fact, I do not understand why Table 3 refers to "intercorrelations" and Table 4 to "correlation". In both cases, it would be Correlations. In the case of Table 5, in addition to being a dispensable table, the variables should have been ordered in such a way that, on the one hand, there were the dimensions of the SPE and then the MSLQ. Nor do I see the relevance of Table 6 when these results could have been better explained in the text.

Discussion & implications

I believe that the exploratory results do not allow us to reach conclusions as resounding as those collected in the implications section.

References

Review carefully APA format errors: capital letters where they do not correspond, the names and surnames of authors only with their initials, etc.

Missing or incomplete references: 1; 11; 14; 17; 19; 26; 32; 33; 43; 44; 45; 47

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: 3. PONE-D-21-29167- Reviewer Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jan 2022

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Our response: We hope that our manuscript fully met PLOS ONE's style requirements in its current form.

2. Please change "female" or "male" to "woman" or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

Our response: We have changed "female" or "male" to "woman" or "man" as appropriate,

when used as a noun.

3. Please improve statistical reporting and refer to p-values as "p<.001" instead of "p=.000". Our statistical reporting guidelines are available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-statistical-reporting.

Our response: We have corrected our statistical reporting according to PLOS ONE's statistical reporting guidelines, including the reference to p-values as "p<.001" instead of "p=.000".

4. Please amend your current ethies statement to address the following concerns: a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain I) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethies committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

Our response: We added in the text that "students had to express their informed consent in writing" and that "The survey followed the ethical rules of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017). Ethical Committee of Institute of Pedagogy John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin authorized the study (approval number: 2020-10-06/1)".

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure [The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript]. At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: "The authors received no specific funding for this work."

Our response: We would like to state that “The authors received no specific funding for this work".

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

-------------------------

Our response: We hope that our manuscript fully met PLOS ONE's style requirements in its current form. We have made significant corrections to the text, including the Results and Discussion sections.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

-------------------------

Our response: Following the advice of reviewers, for which we are very grateful, we have refined our statistical analyzes by making the statistics more advanced (we used the one-way MANOVA instead of simple t-tests; instead of the Linear Regression, we used Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis; see also our responses to reviewers below).

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy [2] requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. Participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

-------------------------

Our response: We deposited our data to a public repository no. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16590032.v1 and we referred to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript file.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

-------------------------

Our response: We made double language corrections by a native speaker and Grammarly program. We took care to improve the presentation of the data and formatting of the text according to PLOS ONE's style requirements

5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

PONE-D-21-29167: The relationship between self-motivated strategies for learning and self-perceived employability in the first-year Polish male and female students. The paper aims at searching the connections between females and males' self-motivated strategies for learning (MSQL) and employability of university students (n=600) in a Central European context. Analyses revealed significant differences in the patterns of correlation between male and female's MSQL and employability (both internal and external). Females, despite their higher results in MSQL presented lower internal employability and general self-efficacy. According to the authors, their results will provide evidence to support HEI curricular development and workplaces attitude change to minimize existing sex inequalities. Below are my comments for possible revision.

Major Points

Results

The authors tested 10 hypotheses in total- H1 to H7 were tested using the Independent t-test, while H8 to H10 were tested using Pearson's Correlation. However, the authors go on to present an Intercorrelation of SPE and MLSD Factors in males and females. What is the rationale for doing this? Also, what is the rationale for correlating MSLQ general with MSLQ factors? Certainly the correlations will be high because each of these factors contribute to the MSLQ general score. The same applies to the Intercorrelation of SPE. Again what is the justification for the 'sex difference in

intercorrelations of MSLQ factors if the authors compared gender differences on the various variables using a t-test? Three hypothesis, H8 to 10 predicted a relationship between specific

variables and yet, the authors chose to correlate all their variable of study. Why did they not focus on the three hypothesis that had been stated? This makes it seem as though they are merely 'fishing' for results and therefore just decided to run as many analysis as they could to be able to generate several results.

Our response: We would like to express our gratitude to both reviewers for their comments on the analyzes. We removed the part with Intercorrelations. We left nine out of ten hypotheses in the text. We removed one hypothesis – original H7 about a higher relationship between intrinsic value and self-regulation in men than in women - because of its weak theoretical and empirical justification. After careful consideration, we decided to calculate the multidimentional test, the one-way MANOVA instead of several independent t-tests to test sex differences in the case of SPE and MSL factors. Moreover, we calculated Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis instead of the Linear Regression to take into account the sex factor as a moderator in the prediction of SPE based on MSL.

We added into the text: "We used MANOVA to test H1-H6 about sex differences at the level of SPE and MSL factors. We calculated R Pearsons’s test for correlation between SPE and MSL (H7-H8) and to test the MANOVA assumption that the dependent variables would be correlated with each other (...). In the last step, we performed Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses to test H9 about the possibility to predict SPE based on MSL and to investigate whether sex may be a moderating factor for the prediction of SPE based on MSL. In this last step of analyzes, we averaged separately SPE and MSL factors into general SPE and MSL."

Discussion

There is very scanty information on the discussion on H8 to H10. A lot more could have been said to explain the findings. Generally, most of the findings are not well discussed. How will the author explain their own findings and whatdo these findings mean? Seven hypotheses are tested to compare males and females on several variables. There are 5 hypotheses which females scored higher than males but these are not discussed. Instead, the whole focus of the Discussion and Implications is on, and centered around the results of the two hypothesis where males scored higher than females. The question is why do the authors ignore all of these other results and just focus on the findings of 2 out of 10 hypotheses? Generally, the focus of the Discussion seems to be all about how females presented low internal employability and general self-efficacy I find the discussion to be very biased and skewed because there were several other variables that females scored higher than males but these not discussed.

Our response: We provided appropriate changes to the Discussion section to refer to all hypotheses. In the Discussion section as it stands, the first paragraph is devoted to discussing the results indicating a higher declared internal SPE (H1) and MSL's self-efficacy (H6) in men compared to women. The second paragraph is devoted to the higher declared assessments of women than men in terms of MSL strategy use (H2), self-regulation (H3), intrinsic values (H5), and test anxiety (H4). The last paragraph is devoted to the hypotheses H7-H9, two of which were devoted to the correlations between the SPE subscales and MSL's self-efficacy and MSL's self-regulated learning (H7-H8), and one related to SPE based on MSL prediction.

Page 10 Line 304- 310: Our results indicated that women's mental barriers might be worse than any institutional barriers to their career advancement. Hence, there is a rising need to provide female students with psychological assistance. In the case when a person experiences learned helplessness, reflected in a sense of decreased efficiency, an appropriate intervention may involve exploring coping strategies. It is crucial to include in the higher education curriculum discussions about the psychological determinants of the underrepresentation of women inmanagerial positions rather than structural barriers. What is the above assertion in reference to? Which of the study variable assessed, and which finding is it in reference to? I think this is far-fetched!

Our response: We decided to remove the sentence with 'women's mental barriers might be worse than any institutional barriers' and softened our conclusions.

Implications

The 'implications' of the study is lengthier than the Discussion of results and I find that quite unusual. Again there are so many findings of several hypotheses that were confirmed in favour of females which the authors ignore.

Our response: We have provided appropriate changes to the Discussion section to refer to all hypotheses testing results. We extended the Discussion section and at the same time shortened the Implication section to get rid of the suggested over-interpretation.

Limitations

The authors do not discuss any limitations of the study. Note that every study has some limitations.

Our response: We have added limitations of the study at the end of the paper.

Minor Points

Introduction

SPE's factors

Page 2 Line 32: External SPE factors include characteristic features of

a local labour market and specific qualifications. The authors should list what some of these characteristic features of a local labour market are.

Our response: We have put in the text several distinctive features of a local labor market: "the perceived prestige of the chosen field of study, the subjective availability of jobs in the chosen field of study, and the perceived adjustment of the competencies held to the requirements of employers".

Line 88-Hence, in our study, we predicted that Polish first-year female students also outperformed males in the case of learning strategies (H2). Use the correct tense.

Our response: We have corrected the tense.

The abbreviation EMP is not written in full in any part of the paper. Please specify what this stands for.

Our response: We have exchanged 'EMP' for 'employability'.

Method

Subject

It will be worth explaining of how the 600 students were recruited, what sampling technique was used etc. and details about the participants such as examples of their subject of study. The term 'Participants' should replace 'Subjects' as that is the more acceptable convention.

Our response: We have put in the text an explanation of how the 600 students were recruited by pointing the sampling technique and details about our participants such as examples of their subject of study. The term 'Subjects' was replaced by 'Participants'.

Polish adaptation of the self-perceived Employability Scale Page 4 Line 130-the authors indicates 6 items on the scale but yet lists a total of 8 items consisting of 3 internal and 5 external items.

Our response: We have corrected the number of items in the text.

The MSLQ

Page 4 Line 150: We considered our sample as learners whose approach to learning is still closer to school students than university students. What does closer to school students mean?

Our response: The sentence (page 4 line 150) has been deleted.

Procedure and ethical consideration

The authors should specify the name of the ethics committee where approval was obtained.

Our response: We specified the name of the ethics committee where approval was obtained: "Ethical Committee of Institute of Pedagogy John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin authorized the study – approval number 2020-10-06/1".

Reviewer #2:

Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering me to review the article entitled "The relationship between self-motivated strategies for learning and self-perceived employability in Polish first-year students". The

manuscript analyses the relationships between self-perceived employability and self-motivation for learning in first-year university students.

Title

I think it does not reflect well the central aim of the study, which is evident in the discussion and the implications of the results obtained. The key issue seems to be the difference between males and females.

Our response: We proposed the new title so that better reflects the central aim of the study: "Sex differences in self-perceived employability and self-motivated strategies for learning in Polish first-year students".

Abstract

The abstract is confusing because at no point does it refer to self-perceived employability, focusing on the general concept of employability. On the other hand, it should refer to the fact that they

are first-year students, since this is an aspect that the authors subsequently emphasise in a special way.

Our response: We have edited the abstract to be clearer about the objectives of the study, starting from the self-perceived employability concept, referring also to the fact that our participants were first-year university students.

Introduction

The first sentence is too long and difficult to understand (lines 2-6). Again, as in the title, more emphasis is placed on the relationships between self-perceived employability and self-motivated strategies for learning, rather than on the differences between men and women.

Our response: We have edited the Introduction section. Hopefully, we make it more concise, understandable, and with more emphasis on sex differences. Our idea was to put general concepts and aims of the study at the beginning of the Introduction section and later focused on specific problems such as sex differences in SPE and MSL in the following subsections.

SPE's factors

From line 33 to 36: sentence difficult to understand, too long. This section gives data on the sample size of the studies that have been reviewed, which is of no interest in this case.

Our response: We have edited the whole section, including the text from lines 33 to 36.

Line 49 to 52: the two sentences are redundant, try to unify.

Our response: We corrected the redundancy.

In line 55, the authors write "We predicted that Polish males would declare higher SPE then Polish". THEN is a spelling error, the correct word is THAN.

Our response: We corrected the spelling error.

MSL's factors

In this section, it would be advisable for authors to include more recent and highly relevant citations. For example:

1) http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.001

2) DOI: 10.1016/j.psicoe.2018.09.001

3) Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, &A. C.Graesser (Eds.), The educational psychology series. Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299-315). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Our response: We took the liberty of using the sources proposed by the reviewer to enrich the section on MSL factors.

From line 73 to 74, the authors write: Others emphasise that a student's success will depend largely on the sense of self-efficacy, as well as the emotions that arise in both success and failure. I propose: Others stress that a student's success will largely depend on the sense of

self-efficacy, as well as the emotions that arise in both success and failure [20].

Our response: We have edited the whole section including lines 73 to 74.

Male and female differences in MSL factors

In line 99 there is a spelling error: MSLQ'a

Our response: We have removed the spelling error: MSLQ'a.

Method

In the SUBJECTS section, it would have been advisable to include other socio-demographic variables. In line 122, when the average age of women is given, there is an error: 19.7.1years. Remove the comma.

Our response: We have removed the comma.

The Polish adaptation of the Self Perceived Employability Scale (SPE) On line 131, correct the likert scale: the authors write from strongly disagree (1) to agree (5) strongly. It should be strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Our response: We have corrected the Likert scale - "strongly disagree", "strongly agree".

Also, the paragraph from line 132 to 142 needs to be revised, as it is too dense and confusing. It should be reworded to make it easier to read.

Our response: We decided to delete the paragraph from lines 132 to 142 to align the description of the SPE subscales with the following description of the MSLQ subscales. Currently, in the section describing the Polish adaptation of the SPE, there is a shortened description of subscales: "In previous studies, scale items have been grouped into two factors: internal SPE (the perceived impact of individual attributes on employer demand for individuals in a particular field) and external SPE (broadly, perceptions of the state of the external labor market and the demand for one’s subject)".

The MSLQ

Present the likert scale with a similar structure to the previous one, putting the numbers in brackets instead of text.

Our response: We have put the numbers in brackets instead of text - "strongly disagree", "strongly agree".

In line 150, when the authors say, "We considered our sample as learners whose approach to learning is still closer to school "they should refer to "High School".

Our response: After consideration, we deleted the sentence with the term "school".

The self-regulation mechanisms linked to learning undergo important changes in adolescence with respect to the previous stage. On the other hand, I recommend that you consult two studies that highlight the false belief that university students are capable of self-regulating their learning and of being motivated to learn:

1) https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.191347686667042

2) https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.13.Special.129-150.2020

Our response: We have added the following excerpt to the manuscript in its part about MSL factors: "(...) it may be that even if students understand self-regulated learning strategies and possess self-efficacy in using them, they might not use them in the non-experimental, everyday context because they are not convinced about its usefulness".

I recommend that the authors revise the description of the MSLQ to follow the same structure, i.e., if in the first three subscales they give a brief summary of the content of the subscales, it would also be relevant to do so for the other two.

Our response: We have put a brief summary of the content of all subscales of the MSLQ.

On the other hand, in line 156 they should remove "and students' learning strategies".

Our response: We removed the indicated part of the sentence.

Procedure

In line 170, I assume they mean that the students had to express their "informed" consent in writing.

Our response: We corrected that sentence.

In line 171, there is an extra full stop after "online".

Our response: We removed an extra full stop after "online".

When the authors state that the survey had the University ethical aproval, do they mean that the University ethical committee authorised the study?

Our response: We added in the text that: "Ethical Committee of Institute of Pedagogy John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin authorized the study (approval number: 2020-10-06/1)".

Results

The results section is perhaps the weakest point of this study, I believe that the data allow for a more robust research design and methodological approach that goes beyond a mainly exploratory analysis

through Pearson correlations. Especially given the conclusions and implications of the study. For example, a MANOVA.

Our response: We would like to express our gratitude for both reviewers' comments on the analyzes. After careful consideration, we decided to calculate the multidimentional test, the one-way MANOVA. Moreover, we calculated Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis instead of the Linear Regression to take into account the sex factor as a moderator. Now our analyzes are unified, by taking into account the sex factor. We added into the text: "We used MANOVA to test H1-H6 about sex differences at the level of SPE and MSL factors. We calculated R Pearsons’s test for correlation between SPE and MSL (H7-H8) and to test the MANOVA assumption that the dependent variables would be correlated with each other (...). In the last step, we performed Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses to test H9 about the possibility to predict SPE based on MSL and to investigate whether sex may be a moderating factor for the prediction of SPE based on MSL. In this last step of analyzes, we averaged separately SPE and MSL factors into general SPE and MSL."

On the other hand, too many tables are included when in some cases it would be more interesting to present the data in the text without resorting to tables with little elaboration and which do not follow APA standards. For example, Tables 2 and 5 would be dispensable. Table 3 is poorly developed and confusing, and its title is not even adequate. In fact, I do not understand why Table 3 refers to "intercorrelations" and Table 4 to "correlation". In both cases, it would be Correlations. In the case of Table 5, in addition to being a dispensable table, the variables should have been ordered in such a way that, on the one hand, there were the dimensions of the MSLQ and then the SPE. Nor do I see the relevance of Table 6 when these results could have been better explained in the text.

Our response: We have completely rebuilt the results section, deciding to turn the stats into a more advanced one. We have included now four tables in APA style that, in our opinion, make reading the results easier.

Discussion & implications

I believe that the exploratory results do not allow us to reach conclusions as resounding as those collected in the implications section.

Our response: We have shortened the implication to get rid of the suggested over-interpretation.

References

Review carefully APA format errors: capital letters where they do not correspond, the names and surnames of authors only with their initials, etc. Missing or incomplete references: 1; 11; 14; 17; 19; 26; 32; 33; 43; 44; 45; 47

-------------------------

Our response: We have corrected missing or incomplete references.

Submitted filename: responses to reviews.doc

Click here for additional data file.

18 Feb 2022

Sex differences in self-perceived employability and self-motivated strategies for learning in Polish first-year students

PONE-D-21-29167R1

Dear Dr. Mamcarz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

César Leal-Costa, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have duly addressed the comments I raised previously.

I am happy to see they have performed a MANOVA instead of the several T-tests. The results are now easier to read and follow.

I have no further comments besides the minor one below.

Limitations

“A final limitation relates to the research sample.”

The authors should specify what this limitation with the research sample is.

Ideally, the limitations are presented after the Discussion and before the Implication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

24 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-29167R1

Sex differences in self-perceived employability and self-motivated strategies for learning in Polish first-year students

Dear Dr. Mamcarz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. César Leal-Costa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE