Competence Literate but Context Lacking? Investigating the Potential of Study Abroad Programs to Promote Sustainability Competence Acquisition in Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Please see the annotated text document included below for details.

2. Two general comments for improving the paper are included below:

• It would be helpful to be clearer and more explicit about the End Goal for making "sustainability competencies" explicit (I usually refer to this as creating sustainable well-being societies." The author may have a different goal. The author's points about the significance of "context" and explicit "sustainability knowledge" become much more relevant, if this point is made early on. This would also help to contextualize the discussion on different approached to sustainability competence

• The author make a very good and important point about the relationship between "sustainability competencies" and pedagogy. The two are intertwined and Wiek, et all. framework does not make this point as clearly and explicitly as the author alludes to in this paper. I would consider emphasizing it more and earlier on as it figures prominently in the final conclusions.

3. It might be helpful to consider additional references that outline some limitations with the Wiek et al. framework that raise issues related to those identified by the author. These include, but are not limited to:

S. Sterling, H. Glasser, M. Rieckmann, P. Warwick, 2017. “‘More than scaling up’: A critical and practical inquiry into operationalising sustainability competencies,” in Envisioning Futures for Environmental and Sustainability Education, P. B. Corcoran, J. P. Weakland, and A. E. J. Wals eds. Wagingingen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University Press, pp. 153-168.

H. Glasser and J. Hirsh, 2016. “Core Competencies in Learning for Sustainability.” Sustainability the Journal of Record 9 [3]: 121-134.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thankyou for VERY helpful suggestions and paper recommendations. I think they have helped strengthen and situation the paper far more thoroughly. 

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

1. Please see the annotated text document included below for details.
2. Two general comments for improving the paper are included below:

• It would be helpful to be clearer and more explicit about the End Goal for making "sustainability competencies" explicit (I usually refer to this as creating sustainable well-being societies." The author may have a different goal. The author's points about the significance of "context" and explicit "sustainability knowledge" become much more relevant, if this point is made early on. This would also help to contextualize the discussion on different approached to sustainability competence

This is a good point, I have attempted to introduce this more clearly within the introduction. See… Line 46 -47 – the discussion of individuals able to influence sustainability transitions with the aim of constructing balanced if not flourishing socio- ecologically healthy systems.

• The author make a very good and important point about the relationship between "sustainability competencies" and pedagogy. The two are intertwined and Wiek, et all. framework does not make this point as clearly and explicitly as the author alludes to in this paper. I would consider emphasizing it more and earlier on as it figures prominently in the final conclusions.

I have attempted to add in a statement regarding the relationship between the two from Line (Line 90, Line 95).

3. It might be helpful to consider additional references that outline some limitations with the Wiek et al. framework that raise issues related to those identified by the author. These include, but are not limited to:
4. Sterling, H. Glasser, M. Rieckmann, P. Warwick, 2017. “‘More than scaling up’: A critical and practical inquiry into operationalising sustainability competencies,” in Envisioning Futures for Environmental and Sustainability Education, P. B. Corcoran, J. P. Weakland, and A. E. J. Wals eds. Wagingingen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University Press, pp. 153-168.
5. Glasser and J. Hirsh, 2016. “Core Competencies in Learning for Sustainability.” Sustainability the Journal of Record 9 [3]: 121-134.

Thankyou, these reference have been helpful and I have strived to both add in further depth to the competence discussion as well as highlight some of the limitations of the Wiek et all framework within the Introduction section with the ‘The ongoing competency conversation in ESD’’ in an attempt to better represent the current state of debate and disucssion as well as highlight some of the challenges and limitations of Wieks list, but also the justification for why the framework has been chosen as the conceptual basis for this study. (Please see Line 89 – 168).

Reviewer 2 Report

Starts with a clear and succinct rationale.

Interesting finding around communication and personal development although, as highlighted under ‘limitations’ this programme was not designed to cover those competences.

Equating ‘mentions’ with competence acquisition is pretty tenuous; this should be acknowledged earlier and discussed more fully rather than giving it a line in under ‘limitations’ on p.16.

The discussion about the facilitator (p.14) and the values framing seem like appendages to the main argument. These are different dimensions of the programme that are not researched as deeply - I would suggest leaving these out as they detract from the central finding.

Throughout this paper the author uses the singular form competence rather than competency (which is fine) but then uses the plural form competencies. ‘Competences’ is the plural form of competence so the author needs to find all uses of ‘competencies’ and replace with ‘competences’.

Some issues with English throughout – a few corrections are suggested below along with other points raised while going through the text:

p.1

Line 19: ‘requires situation of competence acquisition’ – should be ‘situations’

p.2

Line 55: ‘comprise of’ – remove ‘of’

Line 62: ‘one proponent’ – study abroad is an activity or approach or method, it’s not a proponent (an individual or an organisation can be a proponent).

Line 74: ‘grown’ should be ‘grow’

Lines 81 and 86: competency – change to competence for consistency

p.3

Line 94: ‘competence’ should eb plural

Line 96: Need to clarify the point that these are sustainability competences not ESD competences.

Line 105: ‘fields’ should be field’s

Line 110: The term ‘Design Summit program’ is used before the reader has been introduced to it

Line 111: A reference would be helpful here to explain where the reader might find the instrumental case study approach clearly explained.

Line 147: ‘of each five competencies’ – should be ‘of each of the five competences’

p.5

Line 167: The text tells us that Table 2 shows the systems competence coding structure. In fact it shows all five competences. The table also appears to be repeated on p.6-7.

p.8

Line 173: ‘outlines where then mapped’ should be ‘outlines were then mapped’

Line 194: ‘methodology where then’ should be ‘methodology were then’

Line 200: ‘Likewise, a stating…’ should be ‘Likewise, stating that…’

Line 202: ‘was entered into excel…’ should be ‘was entered into an Excel...’

p.10

Line 246: ‘…and were the most prevalent (49 and 49).’ Change to: ‘…were the most prevalent (49 each).’

Line 248: (Strategic Competence)) – remove second bracket.

p.11

Line 279: ‘…that student felt…’ should be ‘…that students felt…’

p.12

Lines 322/323: Your assertion that “methods that promote real world and problem based learning have so far been underutilised as pedagogical means for ESD” is not well founded. Weik et al may have found this in relation to a specific study but this runs counter the experience of many educators who see ESD as the principal means by which they introduce real world and problem-based learning.

p.13

Line 349: The Sustainability Principles of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development – needs referencing as soon as it’s mentioned. You need to justify why you are using this framework; otherwise, why not Raworth’s doughnut model, which is more well known internationally?

p.17

Lines 483-486: Where you discuss the interconnected and overlapping nature of competencies (sic) and how they can work as guides while ‘the discussion of pedagogies and competence relationship develops’, this is a crucial point and could be highlighted at the start of the paper as a statement of purpose.

Author Response

Thankyou for very thoughtful and detailed review, it was incredibly helpful for the contribution to the paper. 

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

Starts with a clear and succinct rationale.

Interesting finding around communication and personal development although, as highlighted under ‘limitations’ this programme was not designed to cover those competences.

A good point and it was not, and I have tried to address this aspect by strengthening the introduction piece addressing the state of discussion regarding competencies in ESD, highlighting the difficulties within this specific aspect of the field (Line 94-95, Line 293 – 305), thus highlighting it as an issue faced by the field not just this study. I have attempted to be transparent with this aspect in line with other research as ‘Regular Course work Assessment’ (Line 667) which acknowledge this method both as a relevant and justified measurement albeit with limitation and the need for developed mechanism to assess competence acquisition.

Equating ‘mentions’ with competence acquisition is pretty tenuous; this should be acknowledged earlier and discussed more fully rather than giving it a line in under ‘limitations’ on p.16.

Yes, I have tried to strengthen this aspect of the study in the methods (Line 293 – 305) with an acknowledgement of this as a limited method in a field area suffering from difficulties across much research, I had also attempted to strengthen the transparency and humility of this study and my hope that it may play some role in progressing the conversation regarding competence acquisition assessment mechanisms.

The discussion about the facilitator (p.14) and the values framing seem like appendages to the main argument. These are different dimensions of the programme that are not researched as deeply - I would suggest leaving these out as they detract from the central finding.

I have left this in but tried to strengthen the articulation of the ‘interesting’ result which was that 9 of the 14 explicit mentions of sustainability came from students whose lead teacher was a sustainability lecturer while adding some supporting literature. This suggests to me an interesting outcome that provides some contribution to the field.  Please see Line 595 - 597 for the updated (and hopefully strengthened) section.

Throughout this paper the author uses the singular form competence rather than competency (which is fine) but then uses the plural form competencies. ‘Competences’ is the plural form of competence so the author needs to find all uses of ‘competencies’ and replace with ‘competences’.

Yes, thankyou, this has been amended.

Some issues with English throughout – a few corrections are suggested below along with other points raised while going through the text:

p.1

Line 19: ‘requires situation of competence acquisition’ – should be ‘situations’ - corrected.

p.2

Line 55: ‘comprise of’ – remove ‘of’- corrected.

Line 62: ‘one proponent’ – study abroad is an activity or approach or method, it’s not a proponent (an individual or an organisation can be a proponent). - corrected.

Line 74: ‘grown’ should be ‘grow’ - corrected.

Lines 81 and 86: competency – change to competence for consistency - corrected.

p.3

Line 94: ‘competence’ should eb plural - corrected.

Line 96: Need to clarify the point that these are sustainability competences not ESD competences. - corrected.

Line 105: ‘fields’ should be field’s - corrected.

Line 110: The term ‘Design Summit program’ is used before the reader has been introduced to it - corrected.

Line 111: A reference would be helpful here to explain where the reader might find the instrumental case study approach clearly explained. - corrected.

Line 147: ‘of each five competencies’ – should be ‘of each of the five competences’ - corrected.

p.5

Line 167: The text tells us that Table 2 shows the systems competence coding structure. In fact it shows all five competences. The table also appears to be repeated on p.6-7. - This has been moved to an appendix.  

p.8

Line 173: ‘outlines where then mapped’ should be ‘outlines were then mapped’ - corrected.

Line 194: ‘methodology where then’ should be ‘methodology were then’ - corrected.

Line 200: ‘Likewise, a stating…’ should be ‘Likewise, stating that…’ - corrected.

Line 202: ‘was entered into excel…’ should be ‘was entered into an Excel...’ - corrected.

p.10

Line 246: ‘…and were the most prevalent (49 and 49).’ Change to: ‘…were the most prevalent (49 each).’ - corrected.

Line 248: (Strategic Competence)) – remove second bracket. - corrected.

p.11

Line 279: ‘…that student felt…’ should be ‘…that students felt…’ - corrected.

p.12

Lines 322/323: Your assertion that “methods that promote real world and problem based learning have so far been underutilised as pedagogical means for ESD” is not well founded. Weik et almay have found this in relation to a specific study but this runs counter the experience of many educators who see ESD as the principal means by which they introduce real world and problem-based learning.

I have acknowledged this point as valid and included it within the paper (Line 482)

p.13

Line 349: The Sustainability Principles of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development – needs referencing as soon as it’s mentioned. You need to justify why you are using this framework; otherwise, why not Raworth’s doughnut model, which is more well known internationally?

Thank you, I have attempted to create a stronger justification for this use of the FSSD which utilizes a peer reviewed scientific understanding of sustainability that allows a unified approach to sustainable development by providing guidelines of what violates and aligns with sustainability, while allowing for a flexible approach within that boundary. (Line 511- 535).

p.17

Lines 483-486: Where you discuss the interconnected and overlapping nature of competencies (sic) and how they can work as guides while ‘the discussion of pedagogies and competence relationship develops’, this is a crucial point and could be highlighted at the start of the paper as a statement of purpose.

This has been added into the introduction (Line 90, Line 95).

Reviewer 3 Report

The contribution of the paper is relevant within the topic of the Journal and the special issue. Moreover, it is a very enriching approach for the academic field.

I think that the manuscript is almost for publication as it is now. Nonetheless, some suggestions are given below.

Abstract. Good summery of the research.

Introduction.

The introduction is well written and it includes significant references on the matter. It explains clearly the research questions and the main objectives of the paper.

As a recommendation, when the aim of the paper is mentioned (lines 106-108), it would be enriching if more details are explained; this is, it is mentioned the main objective, but it can be added, something about the specific case studuy analyzed. Moreover, it should be added in the introduction what is said in the beginning of methos (line 110-112) so that the aim described in the introduction matches with the first line of the conclusions “ This study aimed to investigate whether the Design Summit program results in the acquisition of sustainability competencies within its students” (line 488-489). You should make clear what is the main objective and specific objectives or research questions, in order to give coherence to the story in the paper.

Materials and Methods.

Good explanation. Everything is clear.

Discussion

It will enrich the paper if this section can be really discussed regarding other studies, as the main discussion is made though the results of this paper itself.

Author Response

Thankyou for your thoughtful suggestions. Please see a point by point response. 

Introduction.

The introduction is well written and it includes significant references on the matter. It explains clearly the research questions and the main objectives of the paper.

As a recommendation, when the aim of the paper is mentioned (lines 106-108), it would be enriching if more details are explained; this is, it is mentioned the main objective, but it can be added, something about the specific case studuy analyzed. Moreover, it should be added in the introduction what is said in the beginning of methos (line 110-112) so that the aim described in the introduction matches with the first line of the conclusions “ This study aimed to investigate whether the Design Summit program results in the acquisition of sustainability competencies within its students” (line 488-489). You should make clear what is the main objective and specific objectives or research questions, in order to give coherence to the story in the paper.

Good point, I have attempted to strengthen this point by adding some extra details into the final sentence of the introduction. (Please see lines 173 - 177) so they align between the introduction, the methods and the discussion.

Materials and Methods.

Good explanation. Everything is clear.

Discussion

It will enrich the paper if this section can be really discussed regarding other studies, as the main discussion is made though the results of this paper itself.

Thank you, I have added a number of other studies to strengthen the paper, you can find them within the discussion section in the form of the reference of Lidar et al (Line 595), Wals, Sipos Line (636 – 643)

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present a paper with laudable aims and have presented some interesting work here. However, I feel that they have not sufficiently presented or critiqued the underpinning philosophy of the work or considered the language they have used. In particular, there are significant issues with the use of “competencies” within higher education. Within the Dreyfus and Dreyfus hierarchy, ‘competence’ is quite low down, whereas ‘expertise’ is often the goal. The use of competence as an aim for learning outcomes, therefore sets the bar quite low and appears to deliberately arrest student development. This is echoed within the author’s own words when they say that, “ they acquired competencies skill sets without understanding their purpose”. This is indicative of rote learning and should be avoided. The authors need to better justify their focus on competence and to place this within the literature on expertise. I would suggest the following references:

  Wheelahan, L. (2007). How competency‐based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: A modified Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 637-651.   Kinchin, I. M., & Cabot, B. (2010). Reconsidering the dimensions of expertise: From linear stages towards dual processing. London Review of Education, 8(2), 153-166.     The result of only using systematic reviews as a basis for further work can be restrictive and the methodology has been seen by many as a way of maintaining the status quo, as the systematic review criteria can be selected to remove interesting ‘outliers’ that may offer disruptive ideas and challenge orthodoxy. Even on its own term, the paper used by these authors by Wiek et al [16] has some methodological deficiencies that should be critiqued - in terms of lack of clarity of exclusion criteria and lack of reference to the PRISMA guidelines that are seen as the gold standard for systematic reviews. When the authors talk about ‘convergence in the literature’ [line 89], this can be the result of undue reliance on systematic review methodology and an accompanying  lack of criticality. We need to be careful about such assumptions.     Some of the longer tables (e.g. table 2) would be better as an appendix so as not to break the flow of the paper.    We need consistency in terminology - ‘competence’ [line 170], ‘competency’ [line 180].   Line 189 - ‘data’ is plural, so should be ‘Data were collected.....’.   There is some clarity needed in the way you refer to concepts, [lines 324 - 340]. If, for example you consider how Deleuze and Guattari (2009, 15 et seq.) explain concepts, it is clear that they only function when they are successfully connected. Therefore, you undermine your own comments about ‘competencies failing to function’ [line 336]. If they fail to function, they have not been acquired.    Ref: Deleuze, G, & Guattari, F. (2009) What is philosophy? London, Verso    Line 347 - not all understanding has to be ‘scientific’. Knowledge exists outside of science. I would avoid this implicit hierarchy of knowledges.   I have found Figure 1 and the associated comments, “container in which competencies are acquired” [line 362] to be rather inhibitory, and runs counter to the idea of transformative education. This needs to be revised.   The implication of Figure 2 is that learning is rather linear, and that strategic sustainable development offers no consideration of local, indigenous or other knowledges that could impede (or indeed enrich) this set pathway. This is more confused in Figure 3, where ‘localised’ seems to be at odds with ‘contextualisation’. ? A more nuanced discussion is needed here.   The pathway to sustainability does not have to be so rigid. Consider, for example:  

Le Grange, L.L.L. (2011) Sustainability and higher education: From arborescent to rhizomatic thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(7): 742 – 754.

Tillmanns, T., Holland, C., Lorenzi, F. & McDonagh, P. (2014) Interplay of rhizome and education for sustainable development. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16(2), 5 – 17.

Finally, I would not use the term “dumb” so freely, especially not in the title. This is rather a pejorative term and has no place in an academic paper - especially within a context where you talk about science - where precision of terminology is so important. 

Author Response

Thank you for very significant and impactful thoughts. They were very helpful both for this paper and my ongoing knowledge. 

Please see below for point by point response. 

The authors present a paper with laudable aims and have presented some interesting work here. However, I feel that they have not sufficiently presented or critiqued the underpinning philosophy of the work or considered the language they have used. In particular, there are significant issues with the use of “competencies” within higher education. Within the Dreyfus and Dreyfus hierarchy, ‘competence’ is quite low down, whereas ‘expertise’ is often the goal. The use of competence as an aim for learning outcomes, therefore sets the bar quite low and appears to deliberately arrest student development. This is echoed within the author’s own words when they say that, “ they acquired competencies skill sets without understanding their purpose”. This is indicative of rote learning and should be avoided. The authors need to better justify their focus on competence and to place this within the literature on expertise. I would suggest the following references:

Wheelahan, L. (2007). How competency‐based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: A modified Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 637-651.   Kinchin, I. M., & Cabot, B. (2010). Reconsidering the dimensions of expertise: From linear stages towards dual processing. London Review of Education, 8(2), 153-166.    

The result of only using systematic reviews as a basis for further work can be restrictive and the methodology has been seen by many as a way of maintaining the status quo, as the systematic review criteria can be selected to remove interesting ‘outliers’ that may offer disruptive ideas and challenge orthodoxy. Even on its own term, the paper used by these authors by Wiek et al [16] has some methodological deficiencies that should be critiqued - in terms of lack of clarity of exclusion criteria and lack of reference to the PRISMA guidelines that are seen as the gold standard for systematic reviews. When the authors talk about ‘convergence in the literature’ [line 89], this can be the result of undue reliance on systematic review methodology and an accompanying  lack of criticality. We need to be careful about such assumptions.    

Thankyou, these have been helpful and I have strived to both add in further depth and robustness to the competence discussion as well as highlight some of the limitations of the Wiek et all framework within the Introduction section with the ‘The ongoing competency conversation in ESD’’ in an attempt to better represent the current state of debate and discussion as well as highlight some of the challenges and limitations of Wieks list. I have also tried to further my justification for why the framework has been chosen as the conceptual basis for this study, see further thoughts below. (Line 89 – 168).

I have added extra consideration of the differing opinions and perspectives regarding competencies, including the acknowledgement of competencies within expertise in an attempt to more thoroughly represent the discussion and associated perspective and providing greater nuance and detail into the competence discussion. (Line 91 – 155).

I have attempted to increased justification for the use of the Framework while also increasing my acknowledgment of its weaknesses and limitation by highlighting its contribution as a developing tool within the discussion regarding competences. I have added a number of further references (Sterling (line 150) / Glasser et al (Line 147) / Kinchin (Line 139) to provide deeper and more nuanced context of the developing competence conversation and have aimed to create a more representative understanding of where Wiek’s framework is situation within that discussion. (Line Line 154 – 169).

Thank you for these very valuable points made within this section. It has helped both this paper and my understanding of the area.

Some of the longer tables (e.g. table 2) would be better as an appendix so as not to break the flow of the paper.   

Agreed – this has been moved to Appendix A. (see Line 310).

We need consistency in terminology - ‘competence’ [line 170], ‘competency’ [line 180].   Line 189 - ‘data’ is plural, so should be ‘Data were collected.....’.  

These have been corrected throughout the document, thankyou.

There is some clarity needed in the way you refer to concepts, [lines 324 - 340]. If, for example you consider how Deleuze and Guattari (2009, 15 et seq.) explain concepts, it is clear that they only function when they are successfully connected. Therefore, you undermine your own comments about ‘competencies failing to function’ [line 336]. If they fail to function, they have not been acquired.   

While I think this point is very valuable, I have utilised the terminology as defined from the Wiek framework using ‘concept’ from the perspective of ‘what is used to define’ the individual competencies. Again, I have tried to provide a clear, strengthened rationale for the use of Wiek’s Framework in line with its limitations and to strengthen the understanding of ‘concept’ as a tool of definition by clarifying this in (Line 276). One weakness of the Wiek framework is the failure to define what they mean by concepts and methodology; this has been addressed and added as for consideration on (Line 276 - 279)

Ref: Deleuze, G, & Guattari, F. (2009) What is philosophy? London, Verso    Line 347 - not all understanding has to be ‘scientific’. Knowledge exists outside of science. I would avoid this implicit hierarchy of knowledges.   I have found Figure 1 and the associated comments, “container in which competencies are acquired” [line 362] to be rather inhibitory, and runs counter to the idea of transformative education. This needs to be revised.  

Figure 1 - has been removed and I thank you for the important point regarding knowledge existing outside of science has been acknowledged and rewritten to highlight the point from a scientific ‘perspective’ (Line 508)

The implication of Figure 2 is that learning is rather linear, and that strategic sustainable development offers no consideration of local, indigenous or other knowledges that could impede (or indeed enrich) this set pathway. This is more confused in Figure 3, where ‘localised’ seems to be at odds with ‘contextualisation’? A more nuanced discussion is needed here.   The pathway to sustainability does not have to be so rigid.

Consider, for example:  

Le Grange, L.L.L. (2011) Sustainability and higher education: From arborescent to rhizomatic thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(7): 742 – 754.

Tillmanns, T., Holland, C., Lorenzi, F. & McDonagh, P. (2014) Interplay of rhizome and education for sustainable development. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16(2), 5 – 17.

I have attempted to rewrite this section with more nuance, this figure is not meant to show learning, it rather shows that sustainable development initiatives can be unified with a common understanding of sustainability, and the principles of the FSSD provide that from a scientific perspective. It attempts to suggest that educators should consider these boundaries to contextualise learning environments for sustainability, which then also unifies the implementation and outcome of sustainability initiatives (which is the desired outcome of ESD) while allowing flexibility to implement competencies as well as importing other knowledge, skills into decision making. The figure is not attempting to represent the learning process, but more so, a flexible approach to strategic sustainable development, guided by contextualised learning environments which I portray in Figure 3. I have attempted to make this more explicit by clarifying the associated articulation and the ability to utilise other knowledge within a flexible approach. (Line 540 - 547).

Finally, I would not use the term “dumb” so freely, especially not in the title. This is rather a pejorative term and has no place in an academic paper - especially within a context where you talk about science - where precision of terminology is so important. 

This is a good point and one debated for such reasons. I have shifted the language regarding this throughout the document including the title.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your re-worked version; it is good to see that you have sought to address these minor concerns seriously.

I'm a little confused by the suggestion that the model of sustainability is addressed in lines 511-535 when these lines occur in the middle of the references!  

One sticking point I'm afraid - and this appears to be a mis-reading of my comment on competence vs competency so I apologise if I have confused the issue - my earlier recommendation was to use 'competences' and NOT 'competencies'. Instead you have used competencies throughout. 

You have, quite rightly, used the singular form 'competence' so it is grammatically incorrect to then talk of competencies.

Also, when you talk of a competencies framework (e.g. lines 179, 205, 221, etc.)  or 'The question of Competencies Acquisition' (Line 181) this should be the singular form 'competence'. 

This is an on-going problem and your paper would be a golden opportunity to develop some consistency. To reiterate: replace all references to 'competencies' with 'competences' unless it is a direct quote from another work.

Thanks.

Author Response

Thank you for your re-worked version; it is good to see that you have sought to address these minor concerns seriously. Thankyou, I very much appreciate the feedback and time spent on it. 

I'm a little confused by the suggestion that the model of sustainability is addressed in lines 511-535 when these lines occur in the middle of the references!  

Thankyou, this model has been shifted to after the explanation, outside of the references. 

One sticking point I'm afraid - and this appears to be a mis-reading of my comment on competence vs competency so I apologise if I have confused the issue - my earlier recommendation was to use 'competences' and NOT 'competencies'. Instead you have used competencies throughout. Please see all points addressed below.

You have, quite rightly, used the singular form 'competence' so it is grammatically incorrect to then talk of competencies.

Also, when you talk of a competencies framework (e.g. lines 179, 205, 221, etc.)  or 'The question of Competencies Acquisition' (Line 181) this should be the singular form 'competence'. 

This is an on-going problem and your paper would be a golden opportunity to develop some consistency. To reiterate: replace all references to 'competencies' with 'competences' unless it is a direct quote from another work.

Thank you again for this feedback. Some points below.

• For all mention of ‘acquisition’ I have changed the use of competencies to ‘competence’ acquisition. 

• For the second point regarding the incorrect grammatical use of ‘competencies,’ I see your valid point regarding the consistency of the language used and find a small challenge here. I have no judgement or knowledge of the absolute, ‘correct’ terminology here. But I have followed the terminology used by the major publications and research in this field and also the call for this special issue which all adopt use of the term ‘competencies.’ I defer judgement of this to the field and editors of the journal while appreciating your point. Currently I feel I should continue to use the terminology of ‘competencies’ within the paper instead of ‘competences’ as it is the terminology used within the framework this paper and also within other major publications (Which I have attached below).  I hope this point is understandable and acceptable consideration that allows the paper to move forward. See references below for examples. 

Wiek, A.; Withycombe, L.; Redman, C.L. Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science 2011, 6, 203–218, doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6.

Redman, A.; Wiek, A.; Barth, M. Current Practice of Assessing Students’ Sustainability Competencies – A Review of Tools. Unpublished 2020, 29.

Sterling, S.; Glasser, H.; Rieckmann, M.; Warwick, P. 10. “More than scaling up”: a critical and practical inquiry into operationalizing sustainability competencies. In Envisioning futures for environmental and sustainability education; Corcoran, P.B., Weakland, J.P., Wals, A.E.J., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 153–168 ISBN 978-90-8686-303-7.

Glasser, H. Toward the Development of Robust Learning for Sustainability Core Competencies. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 2016, 9, 121–134, doi:10.1089/SUS.2016.29054.hg.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Competencies_ESD_II

Reviewer 4 Report

I thank the authors for their detailed responses.

All the queries from round have been addressed and I feel this paper can now be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind feedback and help with this paper.