The Use of Reflective Pedagogies in Sustainability Leadership Education—A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript covers an interesting R&D topic and fits the scope of the Journal. Nonetheless, the paper requires extra efforts to improve its quality and presentation. A set of comments are expounded hereafter.
- The manuscript is, in general, well organized. However, there are some mistakes or improvements to introduce regarding the format of the document, as commented below.
In the affiliation of all authors is the same, it is not necessary to use the superscript numbering. Still in this regard, the indication of the country (Sweden) is required.
The acronym ESD is used in the Abstract without having being defined.
LiC (Leading in Complexity) sometimes appears as LIC (see lines 164 and 425).
In line 162, the sentence “…evaluation surveys collated between…” could have a mistake, perhaps “collected” should be used instead of “collated”.
The text in pages 13 and 14 is not properly justified, the template must be followed.
The references must be slightly revised according to the template of the Journal, for example, abbreviated names of journals must be used.
- About the content of the manuscript, as aforementioned, it covers an interesting topic. The comments after a careful revision are the following:
A desirable keyword is “reflective pedagogy” or “reflective learning”, apart from the already existent “reflection”.
A good practice in scientific papers consists on describing in a brief manner, at the end of the Introduction, the structure of the rest of the paper. This information contributes to the readability of the paper.
The students complete a survey which is used as data source. From this reviewer viewpoint, some more information about the survey should be included for a better description of the methodology. For instance, the survey was implemented in paper or through digital/TIC-supported means? Were students informed about the utilization of the survey in research activities?
Regarding the interviews of the involved staff, it is clearly found that “All interviews were conducted in person or via internet conference.”, this is a good feature.
The amount of students involved in the research, 65 students, is adequate. There is information which is required from this reviewer perspective, the age of such students. Indicating the age interval is enough for this purpose.
The achieved results are well expounded; however, it is desirable to include some graphical mean in order to facilitate the reading. For instance, some scheme or diagram to illustrate some information would enhance the presentation of the section. Even, a table with some of the statements that have been collected would contribute to this enhancement.
Mentioning some limitation of the conducted research would also enrich the paper. This could be done within the Discussion section.
The Conclusions section is very similar to the Abstract. Authors could enrich this section describing in a brief manner some future research that they are considering on the view of the presented results.
Author Response
The manuscript covers an interesting R&D topic and fits the scope of the Journal. Nonetheless, the paper requires extra efforts to improve its quality and presentation. A set of comments are expounded hereafter.
- The manuscript is, in general, well organized. However, there are some mistakes or improvements to introduce regarding the format of the document, as commented below.
In the affiliation of all authors is the same, it is not necessary to use the superscript numbering. Still in this regard, the indication of the country (Sweden) is required.
Corrected, thank you.
The acronym ESD is used in the Abstract without having being defined.
Corrected, thank you.
LiC (Leading in Complexity) sometimes appears as LIC (see lines 164 and 425).
Has been corrected to LiC for the instances mentioned
In line 162, the sentence “…evaluation surveys collated between…” could have a mistake, perhaps “collected” should be used instead of “collated”.
Has been corrected to collected
The text in pages 13 and 14 is not properly justified, the template must be followed.
Corrected, thank you.
The references must be slightly revised according to the template of the Journal, for example, abbreviated names of journals must be used.
- About the content of the manuscript, as aforementioned, it covers an interesting topic. The comments after a careful revision are the following:
A desirable keyword is “reflective pedagogy” or “reflective learning”, apart from the already existent “reflection”.
Has been added (Line 27)
A good practice in scientific papers consists on describing in a brief manner, at the end of the Introduction, the structure of the rest of the paper. This information contributes to the readability of the paper.
A sentence on the structure of the paper has been added (see Line 158)
The students complete a survey which is used as data source. From this reviewer viewpoint, some more information about the survey should be included for a better description of the methodology. For instance, the survey was implemented in paper or through digital/TIC-supported means? Were students informed about the utilization of the survey in research activities? Regarding the interviews of the involved staff, it is clearly found that “All interviews were conducted in person or via internet conference.”, this is a good feature.
Some more information has been added in (line 296)
The amount of students involved in the research, 65 students, is adequate. There is information which is required from this reviewer perspective, the age of such students. Indicating the age interval is enough for this purpose.
Some more information has been added in (Lines 184)
The achieved results are well expounded; however, it is desirable to include some graphical mean in order to facilitate the reading. For instance, some scheme or diagram to illustrate some information would enhance the presentation of the section. Even, a table with some of the statements that have been collected would contribute to this enhancement.
A summary table has been added as Table 3. (Line 310) and the results have been slightly restructured to provide greater clarity as suggested by another reviewer.
Mentioning some limitation of the conducted research would also enrich the paper. This could be done within the Discussion section.
Limitations have now been discussed in (Line 730). This has also included some wider context situating the study’s challenges within wider challenges faced by the field regarding assessment and measurement of sustainability outcomes and justification of research method in line with these ongoing challenges.
The Conclusions section is very similar to the Abstract. Authors could enrich this section describing in a brief manner some future research that they are considering on the view of the presented results.
Future research has been added to the conclusion (see line 765).
Reviewer 2 Report
Innovations in higher education, especially regarding the urgent field of sustainability, must be carefully considered for their ability to transform student thinking and lead to idea creation and new solutions. Thus, research on pedagogy in higher education must be rigorous and critical. To this end, I offer points for you to consider in redeveloping this manuscript especially in regard to theoretical framing, methodology, and findings.
Theoretical Framing
The authors claim their pedagogies are emancipatory and transformative, but there is little evidence that this is so. Emancipatory education is grounded in the work of scholars of Color who assert accepted way of doing things are ineffective, thus education must prepare students to generate new ideas and work toward new solutions to real problems. (See the work of Freire and hooks). It is not clear that writing reflective essays (portfolios) and working in small groups (pods) are innovative pedagogies that allow for creativity and idea generation. I agree, “A question for reflective pedagogies within ESD is how to ensure they promote sustainability learning and do not result in ‘endless reflection without the will to act” (p. 13 lines 426-427) and assert this is an essential question of emancipatory and transformative pedagogies. On page 12 lines 400-402, the authors briefly mention the benefits of a diverse cohort, but these benefits are not born out in the direct quotes from the data. I wonder if the format of the Pods, which seemed to often devolve into complaint sessions, was not conducive to learning from and collaborating with diverse learners. Further, the individualized nature of the portfolio reflection might have also limited the emancipatory nature of the pedagogy, i.e. students were not encouraged to work together and jointly reflect on their teamwork but were expected to develop their own individual skills.
I encourage the authors to better articulate the aims and history of emancipatory and transformative pedagogies and then reanalyze data through this theoretical lens.
Methodology
The two “cases” in the case study are not clearly delineated. Are the cases the two different pedagogical tools and how different cohorts interacted with each? Or are the cases the two different cohorts and how each cohort responded to the pedagogical tools? However the cases are defined, more work needs to be done to achieve “rich descriptions” (p. 3, line 111). Details about participants including their “cultural, religious and socio-economic backgrounds” (p. 12, lines 400-401) along with their professional experiences and interaction styles would be appropriate. I also found myself looking for a clearer picture of the way Pod discussions were conducted.
Findings
The findings were organized according to the “benefits” and “challenges” of each pedagogical tool according to student and staff feedback. Often I found the benefits and challenges to be more akin to preferences of individual students. The bulleted list format within the Staff Evaluation section on Benefits and Challenges was more substantial, clearly listing benefits and challenges indicating analysis of data rather than simply listing complaints or praise.
I found the statement “trying to quantify personal development is not working for me” (p. 9, line 225) to be the most intriguing quote in the findings section. I encourage the authors to further examine this statement through the lens of emancipatory and transformative pedagogies.
I encourage the authors to do the same with the assertion, “I did not see the purpose for the essay, so I didn’t invest too much time” (p. 10, lines 283-284).
Deeper analysis is needed around the Challenges for Staff described as Policing and Hosting Uncertainty. These are important points brought up by facilitators that have potential for important implications if they are carefully analyzed from an emancipatory education lens.
Overall, the findings need a much more critical analysis. I recommend asking the questions: What was emancipatory or transformative about the pedagogy? What were the tangible outcomes of the program? What alternative pedagogies might have been more effective?
Author Response
Innovations in higher education, especially regarding the urgent field of sustainability, must be carefully considered for their ability to transform student thinking and lead to idea creation and new solutions. Thus, research on pedagogy in higher education must be rigorous and critical. To this end, I offer points for you to consider in redeveloping this manuscript especially in regard to theoretical framing, methodology, and findings.
Theoretical Framing
The authors claim their pedagogies are emancipatory and transformative, but there is little evidence that this is so. Emancipatory education is grounded in the work of scholars of Color who assert accepted way of doing things are ineffective, thus education must prepare students to generate new ideas and work toward new solutions to real problems. (See the work of Freire and hooks).
Thank you for your comments. They have prompted some more critical reflection on our end, which has led to changes and also highlighted to us weaknesses in our description, which seem to have led to misunderstanding of the aims of the study. We have toned down our emphasis on emancipatory and transformative aspects as our main aim with this paper was to give a case study of specific reflective pedagogies (Line 30) that consider sustainability outcomes. We also acknowledge that with the data we presented we cannot make the claim that we have evidence that these pedagogies are emancipatory, which was also not our aim. We hope the removal of these aspects create clarity on the intentions of the study. We have added data from other sources to evidence that the programme is transformative to many (Line 186), but again we have attempted to clarify that it is not only these two pedagogies that lead to this transformative outcome, but that we believe they had a significant contribution as part of a whole course experience that promoted transformative outcome (Line 200). We have attempted to situate their position more clearly in line with the entire course (Line 193 – 201) to give a better understanding of the ‘whole’.
It is not clear that writing reflective essays (portfolios) and working in small groups (pods) are innovative pedagogies that allow for creativity and idea generation. I agree, “A question for reflective pedagogies within ESD is how to ensure they promote sustainability learning and do not result in ‘endless reflection without the will to act” (p. 13 lines 426-427) and assert this is an essential question of emancipatory and transformative pedagogies. On page 12 lines 400-402, the authors briefly mention the benefits of a diverse cohort, but these benefits are not born out in the direct quotes from the data.
We have attempted to clarify the pedagogies’ power is as part of an intricate interweaving of course content (Line 199) that includes group project work, informal content reflection, formalized group process reflection, and lots and lots of group discussion in a diverse cohort (Line 181 – 186) . These aspects of the course have not been mentioned because they are not innovative in of themselves. What we believe is innovative is this deliberate reflective loop of personal and collective reflection for sustainability outcomes (Line 200) (Line 564, 638) and the role of these two pedagogies in providing processes for deliberate reflection. We have tried to clarify that the aim of the pod and portfolio in itself does not specifically lead to action or collaboration, but that it is to gain deeper insight into oneself, others and the world through conversation, so that resulting action and collaboration occurs in other parts of the program and had significant personal outcomes (Line 187 – 189 , literature supporting the need for interaction in diverse cohorts has been added (Line 638).
I wonder if the format of the Pods, which seemed to often devolve into complaint sessions, was not conducive to learning from and collaborating with diverse learners.
The identification of discontent with pod regarding ‘complaint’ was seen as the exception rather than the rule and this has attempted to be clarified in LINE 658, nevertheless the point of discontent with pod we believed provided an interesting finding with the study that should not be ignored.
Further, the individualized nature of the portfolio reflection might have also limited the emancipatory nature of the pedagogy, i.e. students were not encouraged to work together and jointly reflect on their teamwork but were expected to develop their own individual skills.
We have tried to clarify the pods impact on collaboration and collective learning by aligning its outcome within the wider perspective of the course (Line 187 – 189) (Line 200).
I encourage the authors to better articulate the aims and history of emancipatory and transformative pedagogies and then reanalyze data through this theoretical lens.
We hope that by clarifying some of these aspects and removing the ‘emancipatory’ language we have satisfied the reviewers questions. We thank them for the comments which were insightful and constructive.
Methodology
The two “cases” in the case study are not clearly delineated. Are the cases the two different pedagogical tools and how different cohorts interacted with each? Or are the cases the two different cohorts and how each cohort responded to the pedagogical tools? However the cases are defined, more work needs to be done to achieve “rich descriptions” (p. 3, line 111). Details about participants including their “cultural, religious and socio-economic backgrounds” (p. 12, lines 400-401) along with their professional experiences and interaction styles would be appropriate. I also found myself looking for a clearer picture of the way Pod discussions were conducted.
More detail has been added to the methodology section to clarify the research design and clarify the case study (Line 173) and its boundaries. The way we see it there is only one case as the two tools are interlinked and come together into one approach; the two tools, Portfolio and Pod provide the boundaries to the case (Line 173-174). We have moved away from the ‘rich’ descriptions because we do not think we really offer this, despite the added data. We have added data regarding the ‘diversity’ of the cohort for clarification (Line 182 – 186). Data on cultural, religious and socio-economic backgrounds, bar nationality, are not gathered in the Swedish higher education context and therefore not available. More information on professional backgrounds and age has been added (line 181) and more details on the pod has been added (Table 2). If the reviewer would like even more information, it would be helpful if they could specific what more they would like?
Findings
The findings were organized according to the “benefits” and “challenges” of each pedagogical tool according to student and staff feedback. Often I found the benefits and challenges to be more akin to preferences of individual students. The bulleted list format within the Staff Evaluation section on Benefits and Challenges was more substantial, clearly listing benefits and challenges indicating analysis of data rather than simply listing complaints or praise.
The results of the student feedback have been updated to mirror those of the staff more closely. In addition, a table has been added to summarize, as suggested by another reviewer (See Results - beginning Line 307)
I found the statement “trying to quantify personal development is not working for me” (p. 9, line 225) to be the most intriguing quote in the findings section. I encourage the authors to further examine this statement through the lens of emancipatory and transformative pedagogies.
Further exploration has been added to this discussion - See (Line 694).
I encourage the authors to do the same with the assertion, “I did not see the purpose for the essay, so I didn’t invest too much time” (p. 10, lines 283-284).
Further exploration has been added to this discussion - See (Line 653) (Line 693) discussing the challenge of creating containers that can host all students in reflective processes constructively.
Deeper analysis is needed around the Challenges for Staff described as Policing and Hosting Uncertainty. These are important points brought up by facilitators that have potential for important implications if they are carefully analyzed from an emancipatory education lens.
We have removed the emancipatory focus but tried to identify the difficulty in creating and use of a universal frame of learning for different personal journeys that often bring up challenges for staff, an extra supporting reference has been added within this section (Line 772 - Redman) as well as referencing bell hooks (Line 641) to promote awareness of the power and need for diverse cohorts engaging in collective reflection and discussion.
Overall, the findings need a much more critical analysis. I recommend asking the questions: What was emancipatory or transformative about the pedagogy? What were the tangible outcomes of the program? What alternative pedagogies might have been more effective?
This has informed the reframing of the paper as stated above re emancipatory lenses. We have attempted to situate the pedagogies within the program more concisely and explain that these pedagogies are not the only place where reflection occurs, which is built into the course but practiced specifically with process within these pedagogies as a way of ensuring quality of reflection throughout the entire course (Line 193). We also added data from the recent 2019 Alumni survey about the transformative nature of the program (93% of respondents said it was transformational) (Line 186). This survey however is about the program holistically and is not specifically about those pedagogies although they are considered and mentioned. We don’t have the data to say these pedagogies were specfically transformative or emancipatory as we didn’t ask those question in the data collection but rather have attempted to reclarify the aim of this paper as providing a contribution to the potential of these pedagogies as constructive parts of holistic learning environment as seen through the perspective of those (staff and students) involved. Some literature has been added into the discussion to provide strength to arguments and findings in line with the field’s challenges within assessing effective pedagogies in ESD. (Line 772). Some limitations are now added to provide a more critical lens on the study as well (Line 730) and situating it in a field challenged by assessment and measurement of effective pedagogies for ESD, and the need for examination of reflective pedagogies for sustainability.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The provided suggestions have been properl addressed and the manuscript has been enhanced.
Author Response
Thankyou for your review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Several improvements have been made. In order for the manuscript to contribute to the knowledge base on reflective pedagogy in sustainability education, the following major revisions need to be made.
Methodology
The case(s) in the study need(s) to be clearly defined. Who or what makes up the case?
Connecting Theoretical Framework to Findings
The focus on reflective pedagogy as a theoretical framework is a logical and coherent approach. I found the following tenets of reflective pedagogy on p. 2:
- Results in self-awareness and transformation, leading students to consider and then change their own habits
- Requires empathy, deep listening, and engagement with multiple perspectives
- Requires critical thought, avoiding premature cognitive commitments
- Leads to social action, i.e. creative responses to sustainability problems
However, these tenets have not been adequately applied to the findings. Each finding should be analyzed from the reflective pedagogy framework outlined in the paper.
For example, the findings should not be simply about if the students found the structure to be a good format for their reflection, but if the structure lead to the goals of reflective pedagogy. One student wrote “It helped me a lot better to remember the content and to digest it’ and it ‘forced me to review what I learnt” (p. 10, line 297). Remembering what one read and digesting it is an important part of learning, but it doesn’t really get at the tenets of reflection outlined above. Perhaps the challenges pointed out by the students reveal more about the affordances and limitations of the pedagogical tools. For example, a more nuanced analysis of the following finding is needed: “Several students, however, criticized the ‘personal’ nature of the reflection, preferring for a more ‘content’ orientated focus. It ‘would be nice for the reflection essay to be more related to the readings’” (p. 11, line 325). According to the reflective pedagogy framework, what is the connection between content and personal reflection?
This level of depth in analysis may require a reworking of the findings section so that three or four main findings can be outlined clearly.
Author Response
Methodology
The case(s) in the study need(s) to be clearly defined. Who or what makes up the case? We have attempted to clarify this at Line 114, Line 161, 162 and in Table 2 by stating more clearly the distinct structures of the pedagogies utilised within the case study, the boundaries of each of those structures and their relationship to the wider course.
Connecting Theoretical Framework to Findings
The focus on reflective pedagogy as a theoretical framework is a logical and coherent approach. I found the following tenets of reflective pedagogy on p. 2:
- Results in self-awareness and transformation, leading students to consider and then change their own habits
- Requires empathy, deep listening, and engagement with multiple perspectives
- Requires critical thought, avoiding premature cognitive commitments
- Leads to social action, i.e. creative responses to sustainability problems
However, these tenets have not been adequately applied to the findings. Each finding should be analyzed from the reflective pedagogy framework outlined in the paper.
For example, the findings should not be simply about if the students found the structure to be a good format for their reflection, but if the structure lead to the goals of reflective pedagogy.
This is a good point and very insightful, thank you for the clarification, a comprehensive Key Findings section has been added to the results which examines the results from the perspectives of the ‘tenets’ of reflective pedagogy and their outcomes in line with these four ‘tenets’ (Line 448 - 524) which have also been clarified and made clearer in the introduction (Line 67 - 77) as the conditions by which reflective pedagogies can be beneficial to sustainability leadership education. We find this an important point and are grateful for the very constructive and prescriptive feedback from the reviewer regarding this point.
One student wrote “It helped me a lot better to remember the content and to digest it’ and it ‘forced me to review what I learnt” (p. 10, line 297). Remembering what one read and digesting it is an important part of learning, but it doesn’t really get at the tenets of reflection outlined above. Perhaps the challenges pointed out by the students reveal more about the affordances and limitations of the pedagogical tools. For example, a more nuanced analysis of the following finding is needed: “Several students, however, criticized the ‘personal’ nature of the reflection, preferring for a more ‘content’ orientated focus. It ‘would be nice for the reflection essay to be more related to the readings’” (p. 11, line 325). According to the reflective pedagogy framework, what is the connection between content and personal reflection?
We have tried to clarify this point in the discussion section in the attempt to highlight a more nuanced discussion that suggest that while rote learning is not always the desired outcome for sustainability education, it remains a needed outcome of sustainability learning as part of a portfolio of sustainability knowledge required by sustainability leaders as does the consideration of flexible learning that considers learning needs from both a ‘content’ reflective position and a personal reflective position. Please see line 618 - 640. Again we thank the reviewer for an important clarification and line of questioning.
This level of depth in analysis may require a reworking of the findings section so that three or four main findings can be outlined clearly.
We have also attempted to make these key findings more clear in the results section (Line 448 - 524) and in a recommendations to educators section now located at (Line 670 - 687) that aims to clarify and concisely speak to the contribution of the paper in consideration of educators and those considering the use of similar pedagogies for sustainability outcomes. We hope that the distinct articulation of both the key findings in line with the tenets and the recommendations provide clarity to both the reviewer and the reader.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached notes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We again thank the reviewer for insightful considerations and feel the strength of the paper has increased upon the back of those suggestions. We also thank the reviewer for the continued advice and time spent providing reviews. We hope to be able to satisfy the reviewers comments and concerns as well as possible in order to move the paper towards publication.
The addition of Recommendations for Educators is meaningful, and clarification of cases is helpful.
The data analysis still lacks depth. This lack of depth seems to result from a defensiveness by the authors of their own pedagogies rather than a real reckoning with negative student comments.
In rereading we have seen that our critical analysis of the pedagogy lacked depth; this was not out of a belief that the pedagogies are without need for critical thought, but that thought we had acknowledged elements that did not work particularly well in the pedagogies within the text of the discussion. Revisiting this we can see more critical framing and depth was necessary and has been conducted. Some challenges here are highlighted by the lack of depth regarding the detail of feedback the students provide regarding the pedagogies, which often offers high level, brief statements. This has been acknowledged within the limitations section of the paper (Line759 - 764). We have attempted to clarify a more critical approach to the study by adding a more critical discussion of the pedagogical limitations through sub sections in both the Key findings section (Line 524 -536) and the discussion section (‘Pedagogical Limitations and ongoing challenges - Line 701 -728). We have also attempted to reinforce some of the more critical elements discussed through the paper with greater depth (Line 554 - 558) (Line 567 -572) (Line 618 - 624) (Line 661 - 669).
For example, some outcomes desired by sustainability education remain in the realm of content. Perhaps an examination of the degree to
which the pedagogies promote a clear connection between content and reflection is appropriate and would result in another meaningful implication.
We have attempted to clarify these points by acknowledging the belief that reflective pedagogies promote depth of content learning as well as personal and group development and that the need for transparent explanation of the pedagogies for both content specific outcomes for sustainability and personal development is required as a recommendation. This has been highlighted as a benefit of the portfolio pedagogy which aims to increase the depth of students knowledge by creating critical appraisal of sustainability content through reflective relationship to sustainability topics. This relationship between content and reflection has been added in several areas (see Line 554 – 574) and (663 -669)
Further, positive student comments seem to be accepted by the authors even though they are somewhat vague and surface-level.
We have attempted to acknowledge this within as a limitation, the belief that student feedback (both supportive and critical) often sat at a superficial level that required assumptive analysis, rather than providing the authors with deep, pervading data sets to explore and have spoken about this as a limitation and the need for future research that adopts methodologies that allow for richer examination of the reflective experience of students. Please see (Limitations Line 751 - 764).
In regard to Development of self-awareness and resulting personal transformation:
in defending against negative student comments, additions on p. 18 seem to be
saying both that 1. a student focus on memorization and recall of content is an obstacle to
overcome and, 2. in response to a different student critique, that some outcomes desired by sustainability education remain in the realm of content. Perhaps an examination of the degree to which the pedagogies promote a clear connection between content and reflection is appropriate and would result in another meaningful implication.
We have attempted to better acknowledge the negative student comments and provide a more critical analysis of the pedagogies by including a section regarding pedagogical limitations – see explanation above and (Line 524 -536) (Line 554 - 558) (Line 567 -572) (Line 618- 624) (Line 661 - 669) and removed the implication that memorisation and recall is an obstacle, stating rather that reflective pedagogies serve to enhance learning of ‘content’ learning rather than overcome them with more personal and group development approaches This relationship between content and reflection has been added in Line 554 – 574)) and (663 -669). This enhanced learning comes in the form of increased learning cycles and the reflective process as a way of galvanising student understanding and adoption of knowledge as suggested by learning models such as Kolb.
Is there any evidence students became more aware of their own thought patterns/biases/unique
perspective beyond “laying down my thoughts” and “sharing our thoughts and feelings”? These
evidence seem very surface-level and might even be telling the instructors what they want to
hear.
There is a limitation in the data regarding the depth of student responses, which has been acknowledged in the Limitations section (Line 751 - 764) discussing that students tended to not provide deep articulation within the feedback set used as the data. Methods promoting richer data should be considered in future research (Line 751 - 764). This point also raises the need for strengthening the articulation of evidence regarding developing self awareness of students, which is often present within the holistic experience of the programme as evidenced in the increased capacity for group work and dialogue that emerges over time rather than in the two pedagogies, This has attempted to be clarified within the written text to better represent our points. (Line 458 - 478)
Did the students simply gain practice in sharing their own ideas or did they actually achieve
greater self-awareness?
While it is challenging to ‘prove’ that self awareness develops, the combination of personal reflection, group reflection and the experience of the teachers in working with students as individuals through these process (over 10 months) serve as anecdotal evidence that self awareness grows as seen by engaging with individual essays and conversations with students. The program is evidence to provoke some personal learning as a whole (with 93% of alumni describing the experience as transformational). Thus, while the pod and portfolio pedagogies themselves do not contribute to the entire growth of self awareness, their facilitation of reflective practices is deemed to be a crucial partof this development. We have attempted to clarifiy and strengthen these points within the written text to better represent our meaning (see Line 458 - 478).
Regarding Increased empathy and comfort with multiple perspectives.
I recommend the authors become familiar with literature such as Adler’s (2012) Dilemmas of Action Research which examines both the affordances and limitations of pedagogical tools rather than simply lauding the achievements of pedagogy.
This was a helpful paper and some of its considerations have been added within the pedagogical limitations as considerations for educators regarding pedagogies and the consideration of power and aspects of the student / teacher relationship (Line 722 - 728) and (Line 744). This is also in line with the more critical aspects of the research we have attempted to expand upon throughout the paper (please see explanation above). We thank the reviewer for this relevant and insightful recommendation.
Rather than “Achieving the desired outcomes of reflective pedagogies for sustainability,” a discussion of affordances and limitations of the pedagogies seems appropriate.
Thankyou for the suggestion, we have updated this title in line with the addition of some more critical findings and discussion pieces. (Line 449)
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
The findings are much more nuanced. It is clear the authors took comments seriously and put in the hard work of revising.
Please note the following typographical errors:
p. 14 line 445- repetition of “the”
p. 15 line 477- were/where
p. 15 lines 477-478- The sentence that begins with “Questions” is not a complete sentence.
p. 15 line 515 typo: “that they are perhaps requires”
Author Response
The findings are much more nuanced. It is clear the authors took comments seriously and put in the hard work of revising.
Thankyou, and again we appreciate the diligent comments and feedback from the reviewer that have contributed to a much stronger paper.
Please note the following typographical errors:
p. 14 line 445- repetition of “the” - This has been updated.
p. 15 line 477- were/where - This has been updated.
p. 15 lines 477-478- The sentence that begins with “Questions” is not a complete sentence. - This has been updated.
p. 15 line 515 typo: “that they are perhaps requires” - This has been updated.
