Assessment of the Development of Professional Skills in University Students: Sustainability and Serious Games
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an Assessment of the Development of Professional Skills in University Students: Sustainability and Serious Games. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Dear Reviewer 3 :
First of all we would like to thank you for your comprehensive assessment of our article. The comments and suggestions made, in our sincere opinion, are of great interest and we have taken them into account.
After reviewing your suggestions, we have made important changes to the article. We have carried out a thorough review process and adapted the text on the basis of their contributions. Besides, English language editing has been undergone by MDPI.
Below we describe the changes made:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. It is noted that the research problem should be define, the goals and results of the study also should be clear to the reader. The goals and results of the study are not clear to the reader. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. There is nothing to explain about the research reliability and validity in this paper for your questionnaire. Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. The conclusions are overstated. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript. There are also lack a lot of important sustainability and serious games design reference in this 5 years to support this manuscript related work.
We have added the suggestions the reviewer made in all the aspects of the paper. We have defined the goals and results of the study.
In order to avoid confusion for the reader, we have decided to stop using similes and focus on the terminology defined in Agenda 2030: Education for Sustainable Development Goals published in 2017 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), where key competencies for sustainable development are defined as: key professional skills for sustainable development (KPSS). We have reviewed the entire article to avoid confusion and to make it clear that the studio’s analysis focuses on the KPSS to improve the degree of satisfaction of the students' sustainable curriculum incorporation. As a result, several paragraphs have been amended to comply with Reviewer´s recommendation and to facilitate reading comprehension and explanations of the rationale for the study design. For this reason, the whole article is revised and similar terms modified by the acronym KPSS.
We offer more detailed information in section 2.1. explaining when the questionnaire was carried out, who it was addressed to, what bibliography we used to prepare it, etc.
Questionnaire structured is shown as an ANNEXES, Annex I and annex II.
We add the paper in order to show the paper changed.
Thank very much for reviewing our paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors need to re-read the abstract and make sure that the terminology used is clear and explicit. There is some confusion in the text where you use different terms (possible for the same things?) such as ‘professional skills’ or ‘transverse skills’ and to know whether we are looking at the development of ‘skills’ or ‘values’, or of student perceptions of these things. Also it would be good to be consistent in the use of terms: ‘sustainability’, ‘sustainable development’, curricular sustainability’, ‘sustainable curriculum’ etc.
There is no reason to suppose that ‘systemic thinking’, ‘collaborative thinking’ or ‘critical thinking’ are peculiar to Economics and Business Studies. I realize that is the context where you are conducting your study, but you need to acknowledge the wider applicability.
Line 84: Remove the reference to learning styles. This is a very controversial literature and you weaken your arguments by referring to it here.
Line150: “As a result of the acquisition of these skills, students will be able to participate in a responsible and constructive manner”. This linear causation is too simplistic. Just because people ‘know’ does not guarantee that they ‘act’ in a certain manner. People know that smoking kills, but they still do it.
The list given in Figure 2 as separate skills or attributes needs some development. These are not skills that operate independently, and so there needs to be some discussion about how they might be integrated to inform each other.
Line 183: should be ‘materials and methods’.
Line 192: we need more information about the questionnaire. The detailed statistical analysis that you offer are without meaning if we cannot see what is being analyzed. How was the questionnaire structured? How was it piloted? How does it build on the literature? The questionnaire needs to be offered as an appendix.
To be of any use, we need to know more about table 1. What is the significance of work or volunteering? What kind of work etc. How does this relate to the research question? If it does not, it should be deleted. "N_COUR_SUST" is missing from the note [line 199].
The paper tells us almost nothing about ‘The Island’. What it looks like, how it was developed, how it is played etc. This needs considerable explanation here.
The references need to be formatted in the house style of the journal. They need to be checked for accuracy- reference 42 is incomplete, reference 36 needs a URL, etc.
The conclusion is rather weak. It needs further development and reference back to the guiding frameworks introduced earlier in the paper.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewer 1:
We would like to thank your suggestions and the time you have dedicated to revise our study. Your comments have been greatly appreciated and we think that our paper is now much improved. In the following, we respond to your specific comments and indicate the modifications made in the manuscript to address the issues raised.
After reviewing your suggestions, we have made important changes to the article. We have carried out a thorough review process and adapted the text on the basis of their contributions. Besides, English language editing has been undergone by MDPI.
Below we describe the changes made:
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
1.-
With reference to the ABSTRACT of the article, the reviewer recommends that the authors should ensure that the terminology used is clear and explicit. There is some confusion in the text in which different terms are used (possible for the same things?) as "professional skills" or "transversal skills".
In this case, and in order to avoid confusion for the reader, we have decided to stop using similes and focus on the terminology defined in Agenda 2030: Education for Sustainable Development Goals published in 2017 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), where key competencies for sustainable development are defined as: key professional skills for sustainable development (KPSS).
For this reason, the whole article is revised and similar terms modified by the acronym KPSS.
Continuing with the ABSTRACT of the article, the reviewer recommends clarifying whether we are considering the development of "skills" or "values", or of student perceptions of KPSS.
There has indeed been a transcription error and the word { values{ has been used instead of { skills{ which}. So we accepted the recommendation and modified the sentence to read: "This way, they should be committed to promoting such skills in the students through curricular sustainability, implementing active methodologies and SG for that purpose"
We have also reviewed the entire article to avoid confusion and to make it clear that the studio’s analysis focuses on the KPSS to improve the degree of satisfaction of the students' sustainable curriculum incorporation. As a result, several paragraphs have been amended to comply with Reviewer 1’s recommendation and to facilitate reading comprehension.
“To achieve a more sustainable world and meet all the goals set in the SDGs, individuals should become agents of change, acquiring knowledge, skills, values, and being engaged in behaviours that empower them to contribute to sustainable development through the KPSS”
Finally, it is also recommended to be consistent in the use of the terms: "sustainability", "sustainable development", "curricular sustainability", "sustainable curriculum"
It has therefore been decided to accept the suggestion and to use the terms "sustainable development" and "sustainable curriculum" throughout the text to promote reading comprehension.
2.-
In terms of which there is no reason to assume that systemic thinking, collaborative thinking or critical thinking are peculiar to economics and business studies. I realize that that is the context in which you are conducting your study, but you need to recognize the wider applicability of this.
Indeed, systemic thinking, collaborative thinking and critical thinking are not the only KPSS peculiar to students of Economics and Business Studies. On reading the text indicated by the reviewer, we became aware that the idea we wanted to convey is not well expressed. Therefore, it is modified to comply with the reviewer's suggestion and to recognize its applicability more broadly. This is as follows.
"KPSS represent transversal skills necessary for all future graduates, which can be understood as transversal, multifunctional and context-independent. They do not replace the specific skills needed to act successfully in some situations and contexts, but they do understand them and have a broader scope (Rychen, 2003; Weinert, 2001). Students of Economics and Business are trained to make decisions in organizations. In the near future, these organizations will have to combine their decisions with the achievement of the ODS, and for this, they will need to nourish themselves with human resources where these KPSS have been developed through the sustainable curriculum".
3.-
Regarding line 84 on removing the reference to learning styles. This is a very controversial literature and to weaken its arguments by referring to it here.
We appreciate and accept the suggestion and proceed to remove the reference related to learning styles.
4.-
Regarding Line 150: As a result of the acquisition of these skills, students will be able to participate in a responsible and constructive manner. This linear causality is too simplistic. Just because people know' does not guarantee that they will act in a certain way. People know that smoking kills, but they still do it.
Indeed, although there is literature that justifies the phrase, it is true that it tends to be very simplistic, as it is not the object of the study and is not empirically justified in it. Therefore, we will now modify the verbs of the paragraph to avoid a simplistic linear causality. The text is now as follows:
“Thus, the adoption of these competences will be crucial if they are to be involved in a responsible and constructive manner in the future of a sustainable economic, social, political and environmental environment (Wiek et al., 2011; Rieckmann, 2012; Barr, 2016; Knox, Marston, & Imort, 2016; Carter, 2018, Haan, 2010)”.
5.-
In reference to the list in Figure 2 as separate competencies or attributes needs some development. These are not competencies that function independently, so there is a need to discuss how they could be integrated to inform each other.
It is true that Figure 2 does not give the impression that the competencies are interrelated with each other and that they use each other to develop more effectively. The objective was to propose a circular figure, but due to logistical and space issues it has not been possible.
Thanks to suggestion no. 2, it has already been stated in the text that these KPSS are neither watertight nor independent, but should be understood as transversal, multifunctional and independent
However, to clarify this fact we add a clarifying paragraph, where the interrelationship between the different KPSS is justified, supported by bibliographic citations.
6.-
Regarding that line 183: must be materials and methods.
We appreciate the suggestion and modify it.
7.-
According to line 192: we need more information on the questionnaire. The detailed statistical analysis you offer makes no sense if we cannot see what is being analyzed. How was the questionnaire structured? How was it tested? How is it based on the literature? The questionnaire should be offered as an appendix.
We offer more detailed information in section 2.1. explaining when the questionnaire was carried out, who it was addressed to, what bibliography we used to prepare it, etc.
It is shown as an ANNEXES, Annex I and annex II
8.-
In terms of what is the importance of the work or volunteering and/or what type of work, etc. is performed and whether this information relates to the research question. And if it does not, it should be eliminated.
We've decided to eliminate it. The study shown here is a small part of a much more ambitious study. And while it is true that in providing descriptive data, the team of researchers decided to add the variables related to work and volunteerism. It is true that they are not related to the topic analyzed in this paper, so we chose to eliminate information that does not contribute anything to the study.
"N_COUR_SUST" is missing from the note
It has been added.
9.-
As for whether the study tells us anything about The Island. How it looks, how it developed, how it is played, etc. This needs considerable explanation here.
Thank you very much for your appreciation we certainly forgot this issue, now we have added the brief explanation about the Island in section: 1.2.4. The development of ESD through the SG The Island.
10.-
That the references should be formatted in the style of the magazine's house.
They have been revised and readjusted to the magazine's style guidelines.
11.-
Finally, regarding the fact that the conclusion is rather weak. It needs further development and reference to the guidance frameworks introduced earlier in the document.
We have tried to reinforce the conclusion section.
Being aware of the weakness of the conclusions reached, we thought it necessary to redo them in their entirety. In this way, the new conclusions are more developed by referring to the guidance frameworks.
We would like to finish this letter by thanking again your suggestions and comments, which has allowed improving the previous version. In addition, the paper has been professionally proofread so, we trust it will meet your expectations.
Thank very much for reviewing our paper. We add the revised version of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the article could be interesting, nevertheless several things need to be improved.
1) The theoretical framework is poor and it need to be improved. It lacks of deepness about the "sustainability" concept, the agenda 2030 and SDGs, the role of the Global Compact and PRME and the Business Higher Education, etc ...
2) The article does not specify the relevancy of the research and which gap it does fulfill in the research agenda: why the journal should publish it? which is the area of expertise which refer to? Is there any references in the literature review about the need of this kind of research? Is the paper about Serious Games, or about management skills, or about sustainability in the higher education curricula, ...?
3) The research method description needs to be highly improved specifying:
sample characteristics and justification why these skills and not others skills, for example, identified by UN PRME or others famous scholars experts in higher education why this "Isla" SG and not another one scale and measuraments4) Results need to be better explains, besides the numbers in the tables.
5) The article lacks completely of conclusions and implications (managerial? pedagogical?, ...) related to the original research question presented in the introduction. There are also no references to any research agenda or scientific contribution to any specific academic field.
At the end of the article, it is not clear if the objective was to show that Serious Games are good tools for students development or if the authors were researching about managerial skills development and their relationship with the capability of the university to shape new responsible and sustainable professionals and citizens.
6) The article lack of research limitations and future projects.
The article needs a deep whole review in all its aspects: objectives, relevancy, academic area of contribution, theoretical framework, methodology, conclusions, implications, research limitations and future projects.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer 2:
We would like to thank your suggestions and the time you have dedicated to revise our study. Your comments have been greatly appreciated and we think that our paper is now much improved. In the following, we respond to your specific comments and indicate the modifications made in the manuscript to address the issues raised.
After reviewing your suggestions, we have made important changes to the article. We have carried out a thorough review process and adapted the text on the basis of their contributions. Besides, English language editing has been undergone by MDPI.
Below we describe the changes made:
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
1.-
The theoretical framework is poor and it need to be improved. It lacks of deepness about the Sustainability » concept, the agenda 2030 and SDGs, the role of the Global Compact and PRME and the Business Higher Education, etc..
We have added the concept of sustainability, sustainability policy and sustainability development concepts to improve the theoretical framework. Besides, we have added information about the rest of concepts the reviewer proposes.
2)
The article does not specify the relevancy of the research and which gap it does fulfill in the research agenda: why the journal should publish it? which is the area of expertise
which refer to? Is there any references in the literature review about the need of this kind of research? Is the paper about Serious Games, or about management skills, or about
sustainability in the higher education curricula, ...?
We have added this information in the introduction section, concretely in introduction 1.1. and in 1.2. state of play in 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. sections.
3)
The research method description needs to be highly improved specifying: sample characteristics and justification why these skills and not others skills, for example, identified by UN PRME or others famous scholars experts in higher education why this "Isla" SG and not another one scale and measuraments
Regarding the sample characteristics, the justification have been added in 2.2 descriptive data section. Regarding these skills and not others skills, we have explained it in 1.2.3 section.
Thank you very much for your appreciation we certainly forgot this issue, now we have added the brief explanation about the Island in section: 1.2.4. The development of ESD through the SG The Island.
4)
Results need to be better explains, besides the numbers in the tables.
We have improve it, including explanations below tables, specially, in tables 5 and 6.
Thank you very much for your appreciation
5)
The article lacks completely of conclusions and implications (managerial? pedagogical?, ...) related to the original research question presented in the introduction.
There are also no references to any research agenda or scientific contribution to any specific academic field. At the end of the article, it is not clear if the objective was to show that Serious Games are good tools for students development or if the authors were researching about managerial skills development and their relationship with the capability of the university to shape new responsible and sustainable professionals and citizens.
We have added the suggestions reviewer made in the discussion and conclusion section.
We welcome comments on the conclusions and their implications. You can see that the pedagogical implications, as well as the managerial ones, have been specified. Relating them to the question that is the basis of the research.
In addition, the conclusions have been referred to the academic field of the Social Sciences, specifically the making of sustainable decisions by future graduates.
Finally, it has been clarified that the objective was to investigate the development of management skills and their relationship with the university's capacity to train new professionals and responsible and sustainable citizens.
6) The article lack of research limitations and future projects. The article needs a deep whole review in all its aspects: objectives, relevancy, academic area of contribution, theoretical framework, methodology, conclusions, implications, research limitations and future projects.
In reference to the limitations and future projects we have developed two new points in the article explaining each of them.
We have improved the discussion and conclusion section.
We would like to finish this letter by thanking again your suggestions and comments, which has allowed improving the previous version. In addition, the paper has been professionally proofread so, we trust it will meet your expectations.
Thank very much for reviewing our paper.
We add the revised version of the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have already revised all the reviewer's opinion and will done it. Finally I recommend some good serious game design article for author to consider reference it to make this article more valuable.
Su, C. H. (2017). A Novel Hybrid Learning Achievement Prediction Model: A Case Study in Gamification Education Applications (APPs). International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 16(02), 515-543.
Su, C. H., & Cheng, T. W. (2019). A sustainability innovation experiential learning model for virtual reality chemistry laboratory: An empirical study with PLS-SEM and IPMA. Sustainability, 11(4), 1027.
Su, C. H. (2016). The effects of students' motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 10013-10036.
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for engaging so positively with the comments made. I feel that the corrections and amendments that have been made have adequately addressed all the original comments and this has greatly improved the readability of the paper.
I feel this is now ready to be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed version of the manuscript highly improved the quality of the article.
