Article summary: 

This study investigates factors influencing Khmer–Vietnamese bilingual education (KhVBE) for ethnic minority primary students in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Using a quantitative cross-sectional design and PLS-SEM analysis, the authors surveyed 269 educational administrators and teachers across three provinces. The study examines the effects of contextual factors for bilingual education (CABE), internal learner factors (ILF), information channels (IC), situational factors (SF), and engagement in professional development activities (EPDA) on KhVBE outcomes. The findings indicate that ILF, IC, SF, and EPDA significantly and positively influence KhVBE, while CABE does not show a significant effect. The paper contributes to bilingual education scholarship in Vietnam and proposes implications for policy and practice. 

Review: 

Title/Abstract 

The title is informative, relevant, and clearly reflects the central focus of the study. It appropriately identifies the target population, educational context, and geographical setting. The phrase “Exploring Influential Factors” signals that the study investigates variables associated with Khmer–Vietnamese bilingual education. Also, the abstract provides a concise summary of the study’s background, methodology, findings, and implications. The key constructs investigated in the study are clearly identified, and the major findings are presented in an accessible manner.   

Introduction  

The introduction effectively contextualizes bilingual education within both global and Vietnamese educational settings. The discussion of linguistic inequality and educational challenges faced by Khmer students establishes a strong rationale for the study. The authors successfully demonstrate the social and educational significance of Khmer-Vietnamese bilingual education.   

However, the research gap requires clearer articulation. While the authors mention limitations in previous studies, the manuscript should more explicitly identify remains underexplored and how this study uniquely contributes to the literature.  

Literature Review  

The literature review demonstrates strong engagement with both foundational and contemporary scholarship in bilingual education. The integration of Two-Way Bilingual Education (TWBE) and Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE) frameworks is theoretically relevant and well aligned with the Vietnamese context. Table 1 is particularly useful in summarizing and comparing major bilingual education models.   

Some constructs require clearer conceptual definition. For example, the constructs “situational factors” (SF) and “information channels” (IC) appear to combine heterogeneous dimensions without sufficient theoretical justification. The authors might explain more clearly how these dimensions are conceptually unified.  

Also, on page 5, the rationale for grouping CABE, ILF, IC, SF, and EPDA within a single integrated model needs further theoretical explanation.   

Research Model and Hypotheses  

The conceptual framework is visually clear and easy to understand. Figure 1 effectively illustrates the hypothesized relationships among the study variables. The hypotheses are logically organized and align with the proposed theoretical framework.   

The manuscript should clarify whether the constructs are modeled as reflective or formative constructs, especially because several variables appear multidimensional.  

Additionally, the distinction between contextual factors (CABE) and situational factors (SF) requires clearer explanation, as some overlap between the two constructs appears evident.  

Methodology  

The use of a quantitative cross-sectional design and PLS-SEM is appropriate for examining relationships among latent variables. The inclusion of teachers and administrators directly involved in Khmer-Vietnamese bilingual education enhances the contextual relevance of the study. Ethical approval and informed consent procedures are clearly described.   

The methodology section requires greater detail to ensure transparency and replicability. The authors could specify:  

the number of bootstrap samples,   

The demographic section would benefit from clearer reporting and more balanced participant representation, particularly given the high proportion of bachelor’s degree holders.   

 Data Analysis  

The use of PLS-SEM is appropriate for analyzing complex relationships among latent variables. The manuscript reports key reliability and validity indicators, including Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, AVE, and discriminant validity.   

The statistical reporting could be strengthened through the inclusion of:  

HTMT ratios for discriminant validity,   

Results  

The results are systematically presented and supported with detailed tables and statistical evidence. The findings clearly identify situational factors as the strongest predictor of KhVBE outcomes.   

Some formatting and typographical issues should be corrected to improve readability and professionalism.  

On page 10, the manuscript reports that the model demonstrates “strong predictive power” based on R² = .462. This interpretation may be overstated and should be expressed more cautiously. Also, there is inconsistency between the text reporting Adj. R² = .452 and Table 4 reporting R² = 0.462. This discrepancy should be clarified.   

Table 8 and Figure 2 use inconsistent significance notation (*, **, ***), which should be standardized and defined. 

Discussion  

The discussion effectively connects the findings to prior literature and the TWBE/DBE theoretical frameworks. The interpretation of situational factors as the strongest predictor is insightful and contextually meaningful. The discussion also highlights important implications for teacher development and community engagement.   

The discussion occasionally repeats statistical findings already presented in the results section. Greater emphasis should be placed on interpretation and implications rather than restating numerical outcomes. Some interpretations extend beyond what the data can support. Because the study did not collect student achievement data, claims regarding improvements in bilingual learning outcomes should be framed more cautiously. On page 14, the discussion of theoretical contribution slightly overstates the extent to which the study “validates” TWBE and DBE frameworks.  Also, there is great need to check the grammatical consistency (i.e. on page 12, R2 value for is 0.462, 

Conclusion/suggestions  

The conclusion summarizes the key findings clearly and reinforces the importance of bilingual education for ethnic minority students in Vietnam. The emphasis on culturally responsive and sustainable educational practices is valuable and timely.   

Also, the manuscript appropriately acknowledges several limitations related to geographic scope and participant sampling. The recommendations for future research are relevant and constructive.   

On pages 14-15, the limitations focus primarily on sampling scope but do not sufficiently address methodological limitations related to self-report measures and common method variance.  

The limitations section might also discuss:  

the reliance on self-report data,   

References  

The reference list is comprehensive and includes both foundational and recent scholarship relevant to bilingual education. The inclusion of more published in 2024–2026 strengthens the manuscript’s contemporary relevance. 

The reference section should be carefully checked for consistency in formatting and citation style. Some references contain inconsistent punctuation and spacing (e.g., page 15 “21 st century” vs. “21st century”).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Bilingualism

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Overall Assessment

This manuscript addresses an important topic in bilingual education for ethnic minority students in Vietnam. However, several significant issues require attention before the paper can be accepted for indexing. Below, I provide specific, actionable concerns organized by manuscript section.

1. Abstract

Issue 1.1: The abstract states findings that "contextual factors for the application of bilingual education (CABE) did not show a significant influence" but fails to report the direction or magnitude of non-significant effects.

Current text:  "In contrast, contextual factors for the application of bilingual education (CABE) did not show a significant influence."

Recommendation: Report the beta coefficient and p-value (β = −0.049, p = 0.519) to be transparent about the null finding.

2. Introduction

Issue 2.1: The introduction lacks clear articulation of the research gap. While the authors claim existing research is "descriptive, isolated, and limited in explanatory power," they do not specify what explanatory mechanisms previous studies failed to address.

Current text (p. 4):  "Existing studies have yet to systematically investigate how multiple contextual, learner-related, and institutional factors interact to shape the implementation and effectiveness of Khmer–Vietnamese bilingual education (KhVBE) in primary schools."

Recommendation: Specify at least two theoretical mechanisms (e.g., additive bilingualism, interdependence hypothesis) that previous descriptive studies overlooked and that your quantitative model captures.

Issue 2.2: The introduction presents five challenges facing Khmer students (numbered 1-5) but does not cite Vietnamese-language sources or local policy documents for several claims.

Current text (p. 3):  "(2) shortages and inconsistencies in bilingual instructional materials, along with limited opportunities to use Khmer in formal schooling (Bui, 2022)"

Recommendation: Add Ministry of Education and Training reports or provincial Department of Education assessments to substantiate claims about material shortages.

3. Literature Review

Issue 3.1: Table 1 is referenced but completely missing from the manuscript.

Current text (p. 5):  "Model Defi… Tran… Uses… Main… Sust… Enri… Table 1. A comparative overview of key bilingual education models."

Recommendation: Provide the complete Table 1 with clear column headers, definitions for each model (Transitional, Maintenance, Enrichment, Two-Way, Developmental), and appropriate citations for each.

Issue 3.2: The literature review claims TWBE and DBE are "aligned with national policy directives" but provides no citation to Vietnamese legal documents.

Current text (p. 5):  "Within this context, the present study adopts the Two-Way Bilingual Education (TWBE) and Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE) models, as these frameworks are aligned with national policy directives and accurately reflect the educational practices implemented for ethnic minority students across the country."

Recommendation: Cite specific articles from Circular No. 34/2020/TT-BGDĐT or other MOET documents that explicitly endorse or reference these models.

Issue 3.3: The hypothesis development section cites literature for each factor but provides insufficient theoretical justification for why these specific five factors were selected over others.

Current text (p. 7):  "Previous empirical investigations have demonstrated that the construct of CABE exerts a significant influence on the KhVBE, thereby underscoring the critical role of contextual factors..."

Recommendation: For each hypothesis (H1-H5), explicitly state the theoretical mechanism (e.g., "Cummins' interdependence hypothesis suggests that..." or "Ecological systems theory posits that...").

4. Methodology

4.1 Subjects

Issue 4.1: The timeline indicates data collection occurred in "May and June 2025" - this appears to be in the future relative to the manuscript submission date.

Current text (p. 8):  "Accordingly, 269 valid responses were collected via Google Forms between May and June 2025"

Recommendation: Verify the correct data collection dates. If this is a typo, correct to the actual collection period (likely 2024 or earlier).

Issue 4.2: The sample size justification is inadequate. The authors state the response rate (89.67%) exceeds Dillman's (2000) threshold but fail to provide a power analysis for PLS-SEM.

Current text (p. 8): *"This rate exceeds the minimum threshold commonly recommended for survey-based research in the social sciences and enhances the robustness and reliability of the dataset (Dillman, 2000)."*

Recommendation: Add a power analysis using G*Power or the inverse square root method appropriate for PLS-SEM. Report minimum required sample size given number of predictors (5), desired power (0.80), and significance level (0.05).

Issue 4.3: The sample includes both "educational administrators and teachers" but the manuscript does not report the proportion from each subgroup.

Current text (p. 8):  "The study targeted educational administrators and teachers directly responsible for managing or delivering the Khmer–Vietnamese bilingual program"

Recommendation: Report the exact numbers: how many administrators vs. teachers? If the proportion differs substantially, test for measurement invariance between groups.

4.2 Instruments

Issue 4.4: Tables 2 and 3 are incomplete and uninformative. They show only truncated variable names without actual item content.

Current text (p. 9):  "Variable… Constr… KhVBE KhVB… KhVBE 2 Promote m… KhVBE 3 Promote b… Table 2. Measurement items description for dependent variable."

Recommendation: Provide complete tables with:

Full item wording in both English and Vietnamese (or at least English translation)

Current text (p. 10):  "The instrument included 25 items for KhVBE and 43 items for the independent variables"

Recommendation: Add a subsection on "Instrument Development" describing:

Whether items were adapted or newly developed

Issue 4.6: The authors justify PLS-SEM because data "may not meet assumptions of normality" but provide no normality tests.

Current text (p. 10):  "This approach was selected because it is appropriate for predictive modeling, complex structural relationships, and data that may not meet assumptions of normality."

Recommendation: Report skewness and kurtosis values for each indicator, or provide Mardia's multivariate normality test results to justify the CB-SEM vs. PLS-SEM decision.

5. Results

5.1 Measurement Model

Issue 5.1: The AVE for KhVBE is 0.580, which barely exceeds the 0.50 threshold. With 25 items measuring one construct, an AVE of 0.580 suggests substantial measurement error.

Current text (p. 11):  "AVE was 0.580, which surpassed the allowable level of 0.5"

Recommendation:

Test whether a multidimensional structure for KhVBE fits better (e.g., separate factors for reading, writing, speaking outcomes)

Issue 5.2: Table 4 shows factor loadings for only 5 of the 25 KhVBE items. The complete table with all 25 items is missing.

Current text (p. 11):  "KhV… 0.8… KhV… 0.8… Table 4. The results of factor loadings, reliability, and convergent validity of the dependent variable."

Recommendation: Provide the complete table showing all 25 items and their loadings, or report the range and median loading plus the number of items with loadings below 0.70.

Issue 5.3: Table 5 for independent variables shows only 3 items for CABE (CABE1, CABE2, CABE3) but the manuscript states 43 total items across independent variables. The complete structure is unclear.

Current text (p. 12):  "Fac… fac… CABE CAB… CABE 2 0.942 CABE 3 0.912 Table 5. The results of factor loadings, reliability, and convergent validity of the independent variable."

Recommendation: Provide a complete table or supplementary file with:

All constructs (CABE, ILF, IC, SF, EPDA)

Issue 5.4: The Fornell-Larcker discriminant validity table (Table 6) is incomplete and misaligned.

Current text (p. 12):  "KhV… KhV… 0.7… CABE 0.6… SF 0.3… Table 6. Discriminant validity."

Recommendation: Provide a properly formatted correlation matrix with:

Square root of AVE on diagonal

Issue 5.5: The HTMT criterion for discriminant validity is not reported. Fornell-Larcker alone is insufficient, especially given the high correlations (CABE-KhVBE correlation appears to be 0.6+).

Recommendation: Add the HTMT ratio table with confidence intervals. Report any values exceeding 0.85 or 0.90 that indicate discriminant validity problems.

5.2 Structural Model

Issue 5.6: The R² value is reported as both 0.452 (Adj. R²) and 0.462 (R²) in different places.

Current text (p. 11 vs. p. 13): *"These models explained 45.2% of the variance... (Adj. R2 = .452)" and "The R2 value for is 0.462, indicating that 46.2% of the variance"*

Recommendation: Reconcile the discrepancy. Report both R² and adjusted R² with clear labeling and explanation of why they differ.

Issue 5.7: The VIF values in Table 7 show CABE at 2.343 and ILF at 2.106, which approach the conservative threshold of 2.5. This suggests potential multicollinearity between contextual and internal factors.

Current text (p. 13): *"VIF = 1.351 to 2.343, indicating no risk of serious multicollinearity"*

Recommendation:

Calculate condition indices or variance proportions to diagnose potential multicollinearity

Current text (p. 13): *"The findings reveal that CABE is the sole construct lacking a statistically significant effect on KhVBE (β = −0.049, t = 0.646, p = 0.519)"*

Recommendation:

Acknowledge that the coefficient, though non-significant, points in the opposite direction of H1

6. Discussion

Issue 6.1: The discussion interprets CABE's non-significance as meaning "broader contextual conditions alone may be insufficient" but ignores the possibility that CABE was poorly measured.

Current text (p. 14):  "The lack of significance in this study suggests that broader contextual conditions alone may be insufficient to improve bilingual education outcomes unless they are accompanied by strong implementation mechanisms..."

Recommendation: Add a paragraph acknowledging measurement limitations. Given CABE items had very high loadings (0.912-0.942 in Table 5, though incomplete), this suggests the construct was reliably measured but perhaps misspecified - e.g., contextual factors may operate through mediators rather than directly.

Issue 6.2: The discussion claims SF was the "strongest predictor" (β = 0.487) but does not compare this effect size to published benchmarks in bilingual education research.

Recommendation: Compare the β = 0.487 effect to similar studies (e.g., Castro et al., 2025 cited in paper). Is this effect small, medium, or large by field standards? Report Cohen's f² effect sizes.

Issue 6.3: The discussion section (5 pages) is disproportionately long relative to results (2 pages). Some content belongs in the literature review or conclusion.

Recommendation: Condense the discussion by moving theoretical integration points to the literature review and practical implications to the conclusion section. Reserve discussion for unexpected findings, comparisons to prior research, and methodological caveats.

Issue 6.4: The discussion introduces new citations (Baddeley, 2003; Almansour & Kurt, 2022; Balcı & Kartal, 2021) that were not in the literature review or hypothesis development.

Current text (p. 15):  "...aligning with prior work emphasizing the roles of motivation, cognitive resources... (Perez, 2020; Pavia et al., 2019; Baddeley, 2003)"

Recommendation: Either move these citations to the literature review or remove them. The discussion should interpret findings using previously introduced theory, not introduce new literature post-hoc.

7. Conclusion

Issue 7.1: The conclusion restates findings but does not address the practical significance of the very small effect sizes for ILF (β = 0.156) and EPDA (β = 0.123).

Current text (p. 17):  "structural model results reveal that four factors: ILF, IC, SF, and EPDA—exert significant positive effects"

Recommendation: Add a statement about practical significance. For EPDA (β = 0.123), a one standard deviation increase in professional development predicts only a 0.123 SD increase in outcomes. Discuss whether this effect is meaningful for policy given implementation costs.

Issue 7.2: The conclusion claims the study "validates a comprehensive, multidimensional model" but no model fit statistics (SRMR, NFI, RMS_theta) are reported.

Recommendation: Report global model fit indices for PLS-SEM: SRMR < 0.08, NFI > 0.90, RMS_theta < 0.12. Without these, claims of model validation are unsupported.

8. Suggestions Section

Issue 8.1: The "Suggestion" section (labeled 7) is redundant with the conclusion (labeled 6) and contains no substantive recommendations beyond sampling expansion.

Current text (p. 17):  "The primary limitation lies in the fact that the survey sample was drawn exclusively from educational administrators and teachers... future research should broaden the sampling frame"

Recommendation: Either merge with the conclusion or rename as "Limitations and Future Research." Add specific methodological recommendations:

Include student outcome measures (not just administrator/teacher perceptions)

9. References

Issue 9.1: Hoang HB (2007) is cited in the references but not in the main text.

Recommendation: Either cite this reference in the manuscript or remove it from the reference list.

Issue 9.2: Hornberger NH (2002) is listed in references but not cited.

Recommendation: Integrate Hornberger's continua of biliteracy framework into the literature review or remove the reference.

Issue 9.3: Kwakkel et al. (2023), Mahdi (2014), and Mifsud et al. (2021) appear in references but not in citations.

Recommendation: Conduct a thorough citation audit to ensure all references are cited and all citations appear in references.

10. Tables and Figures

Issue 10.1: Figure 1 and Figure 2 are referenced but not visible in the manuscript text.

Recommendation: Ensure figures are properly embedded with captions. Verify that path coefficients in Figure 2 match Table 8 (e.g., SF → KhVBE at β = 0.487**).

Issue 10.2: No figure legend or note explains what the asterisks in Figure 2 mean, though the text says "Note: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05."

Recommendation: Add the significance legend to the figure caption itself, not just in the text note.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

educational spychology, constructivism, learning environment, inclusive education,

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.