Didactic Strategies to Promote Competencies in Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

I have read your paper entitled “Didactic strategies to promote competencies in sustainability” with interest. It is an interesting paper, but I would recommend to revise some issues, as explained below.

 

In the introduction, the focus is set on the Spanish context. I would recommend to first present the literature on a global scale, and then afterwards provide the details on the Spanish context. E.g. regarding the competencies for sustainability, I miss some of the key references in the field (e.g. de Haan, Rieckmann), as well as recent insights in the field (e.g. Ploum).

 

Then, regarding the topic of connecting competences to didactic approaches, I miss reference to some of the recent debates in the literature, I provide some examples:

In a follow up paper of his seminal work on key competences for sustainable development, Wiek et al. presented detailed operationalization approaches for these competences (you can find an open access version via google scholar): Wiek, A., Bernstein, M., Foley, R., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., ... & Withycombe Keeler, L. (2015). Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development. Handbook of higher education for sustainable development. Routledge, 241-260.

Lambrechts et al. (2013), already in your reference list, provided a list of educational approaches believed to be appropriate for HESD and competences for SD: (1) interactive and participative methods (e.g. Socratic method); (2) action-oriented methods; (3) research methods. In a follow up study, (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2015-0060) the role and importance of research competences and methods in acquiring sustainability competences is further elucidated; as well as more recently, (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618322923?via%3Dihub) the importance of critical and interpretational competences in relation to sustainability education in the post-truth era is reflected upon.

Ploum et al. (2018) presented a validated competence framework (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1086026617697039) based on (a.o. the work of Wiek et al.)

 

In describing the methodology, you refer to the sociocritical method, however I would recommend to provide a bit more details as well as references for this method.

The tables presented in the results section are interesting, yet contain a lot of information. Consider to move these tables to appendices and replace them with smaller tables in the results section. These smaller tables should then contain the core elements. You might as well consider to precent them schematically in a figure/model.

In the results/conclusions section, I miss a revisit to the existing literature and how your paper responds to the existing body of knowledge. Which exiting insights from the literature are approved/rejected; which new insights does your study offer? Also consider to reflect on the limitations of your study.

 

Other comments:

-the numbering of sections/subsections is not correct (e.g. after section 1 follows subsection 2.1.)

-not all references are correct (e.g. reference 8, WIek et al. is not complete)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your comments. We've changed the manuscript text in order to attain all the observations, which we think improve the article

Reviewer 2 Report

Lines 48-49: Is not clear - EDINSOST, I think it's a punctuation mistake. (...)

Lines 146 - please specify that is RSU, in brackets

Lines 288: I recommend mentioning in parentheses what is POL

I recommend mentioning in the methodology section: the project implementation period, the location, the target group and their characteristics. domains of specialization of the subjects.

Please mention how these strategies have been implemented in the curriculum.

Please mention the ways to collect the results on the basis of which you have achieved these strategies.

How monitoring and evaluation were done. What forms of assessment have been applied, with questionnaires targeted?

What are strength points.

I also recommend introducing a discussion section that highlights strategies and results in combination with other studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments which have been incorporated

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising your manuscript according to the reviewer comments. I think you addressed the comments well. Only some minor issues need to be checked before acceptance:

- consider to replace 'and colleagues' with 'et al.' when referring to a reference with multiple authors.

- consider to rename section 5 to "discussion and conclusion"

- check reference style throughout the paper according to the journal guidelines, e.g. when referring to multiple references, the correct way to do this is [1, 2, 3, 6, 8] or [1-3, 6, 8].

- check your reference list for duplicates and style issues, as well as completeness of all references (issue number, page numbers etc.)

- check manuscript throughout for English spelling and typo's.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments.

We've tried to revise the manuscript according to your minor proposed changes, included renaming the "Conclusions" section to "Discussion and conclusions". Many thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 67: I recommend correcting the introduction of bibliographic indices according to the rules of the journal. For example, 1,2,3,4,5 put [1-5] in the same bracket

Line 106 does not have the punctuation at the end of the sentence.

I recommend that the conclusion section be focused only on the main conclusions drawn from the research. The other arguments should be entered in a new section Discussions. In this new section I recommend referring to the correlations between the results of your study and the results of other studies in this area of interest.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding the conclusion section, we have renamed the section to "Discussion and conclusions", since, similarly to you recommendation, the other reviewer recommend us to do this way. Many thanks