CoDesignS Education for Sustainable Development: A Framework for Embedding Education for Sustainable Development in Curriculum Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your article to the journal. The topic addressed in your article is highly relevant and holds significant potential for application within higher education institutions. I appreciate the effort you have put into this work. However, I would like to provide some feedback to enhance the overall quality and impact of your article.

1. Abstract: I recommend enhancing the abstract by including a clear definition of the conceptual framework used in your study. Providing a brief explanation of the framework will help readers grasp the foundation of your research.

2. Literature Review: While I agree with the elements presented in the foundational pillars, I suggest incorporating more recent literature that focuses on efforts to promote sustainability in educational programs. This will ensure that your article is up to date with the latest advancements in the field. I recommend considering and referencing the following studies, published in the own journal, which align with the theme:

   • Portuguez Castro M, Gómez Zermeño MG. Challenge Based Learning: Innovative Pedagogy for Sustainability through e-Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability. 2020; 12(10):4063. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104063
   • Portuguez Castro M, Gómez Zermeño MG. Identifying Entrepreneurial Interest and Skills among University Students. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):6995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13136995

3. Methodology: It would be beneficial to provide context regarding the research environment in which the study was conducted. Additionally, clarify whether the methodology is universally applicable to all universities, or if there are specific considerations or limitations.

4. Results: In the results section, I recommend elucidating the process through which the identified categories were derived. Furthermore, it is essential to explain the relevance of each category to the educational sector and demonstrate how they can be effectively applied in various contexts. Providing this additional depth will enhance the understanding of your findings.

5. Model Adjustments: Please outline the adjustments that will be made to the model based on the feedback received from the participants. Understanding the modifications to the model will give readers insight into the iterative process and its potential impact.

Your contributions to the discourse on sustainability in higher education are commendable. Addressing these suggestions will strengthen the quality and comprehensiveness of your article, ensuring its relevance and impact within the academic community.

Thank you for your attention to these recommendations.

Author Response

We are very thankful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper and for the willingness of the review panel to help us improve our paper further by giving us their constructive comments and suggestions. Below we summarize the revisions we made to the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 1

Thank you for submitting your article to the journal. The topic addressed in your article is highly relevant and holds significant potential for application within higher education institutions. I appreciate the effort you have put into this work. However, I would like to provide some feedback to enhance the overall quality and impact of your article.

Response:

Thank you for your kind words. We appreciate the feedback provided.

1. Abstract: I recommend enhancing the abstract by including a clear definition of the conceptual framework used in your study. Providing a brief explanation of the framework will help readers grasp the foundation of your research.

Response:

We have added the following to the abstract “The Framework introduces transformative pedagogies and teaching methods that extend beyond typical ESD competencies, encompassing cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral domains for a holistic design and delivery.”

Given the word limit of 200, we have also revised the entire abstract accordingly.

1. Literature Review: While I agree with the elements presented in the foundational pillars, I suggest incorporating more recent literature that focuses on efforts to promote sustainability in educational programs. This will ensure that your article is up to date with the latest advancements in the field. I recommend considering and referencing the following studies, published in the own journal, which align with the theme:
• Portuguez Castro M, Gómez Zermeño MG. Challenge Based Learning: Innovative Pedagogy for Sustainability through e-Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability. 2020; 12(10):4063. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104063
• Portuguez Castro M, Gómez Zermeño MG. Identifying Entrepreneurial Interest and Skills among University Students. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):6995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13136995

 

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. We have cited both papers in the foundational pillars (page 3) and in the discussion section.

1. Methodology: It would be beneficial to provide context regarding the research environment in which the study was conducted. Additionally, clarify whether the methodology is universally applicable to all universities, or if there are specific considerations or limitations.

Response

We have made the necessary changes based on your recommendations. Please see the highlighted texts in the methodology section (Section 3, page 7-8, paragraphs 1-4, lines 185-209)

1. Results: In the results section, I recommend elucidating the process through which the identified categories were derived. Furthermore, it is essential to explain the relevance of each category to the educational sector and demonstrate how they can be effectively applied in various contexts. Providing this additional depth will enhance the understanding of your findings.

Response

We have added the necessary changes based on your recommendations throughout the results section (Section 4, pages 9-19).

1. Model Adjustments: Please outline the adjustments that will be made to the model based on the feedback received from the participants. Understanding the modifications to the model will give readers insight into the iterative process and its potential impact.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. We have added a new subsection (5.1 Potential Model Adjustment, pages 20-21) in the discussion section (Section 5)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides sufficient background on the topic and previews major points. Both research design and analysis are adequate. The authors adequately justify the small sample size for its exploratory character.

Below are suggestions for improving the readability of the article.

-          The authors are recommended to modify the format in which the results are presented. Tables are not necessary, and it would be preferable to write in paragraphs preceded by the corresponding subtitle.

-          Similarly, the article should include limitations to the study as well as perspectives for future studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No coments on the quality of English Language

Author Response

We are very thankful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper and for the willingness of the review panel to help us improve our paper further by giving us their constructive comments and suggestions. Below we summarize the revisions we made to the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

 

The introduction provides sufficient background on the topic and previews major points. Both research design and analysis are adequate. The authors adequately justify the small sample size for its exploratory character.

Response

Thank you for your kind feedback.

 

Below are suggestions for improving the readability of the article.

1. The authors are recommended to modify the format in which the results are presented. Tables are not necessary, and it would be preferable to write in paragraphs preceded by the corresponding subtitle.

Response

Thank you for the feedback. We have removed all the tables in the result section and written them in paragraphs instead. Please refer to Section 4. Results page 9-19.

2. Similarly, the article should include limitations to the study as well as perspectives for future studies.

Response

We have added a new section called Limitations and Future Research (see Section 6, page 21) to discuss the limitations to the study and future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research uses of the CoDesignS ESD framework in higher education institutions to promote education for sustainable development. The innovation of the manuscript would be in the use of focus groups to analyze the three pillars of the framework.

 

The work could provide certain clarity on the importance of the sustainable development goals on teaching and learning processes in higher education institutions. However, The tables used are very long and do not provide relevant information.

 

I consider that the number of interviews (16), where students are a limited number (5), does not clearly define the trend of the results of the use of the strategy in the perception of learning about the sustainable development goals. From a methodological point of view, the authors should clarify how the interview data were extracted and why such precise validity is given to the responses of the interviewees.

 

The results have been presented in a chaotic manner.  They are not comprehensible because of their length.  It is not possible to follow up the discussion and, finally on conclusions.  I would recommend that the authors simplify the tables and use indicators from the 16 interviews to visualize the data obtained, to discuss them with further support from the bibliography, and to do the conclusions more evident.

 

The results have been presented in a chaotic manner. They are not comprehensible because of their length. It is not possible to follow up the discussion.

 

The work needs a lot of improvement before it can be accepted. The results should be organised in a coherent way with the discussion and conclusions.

 

I considered that the manuscript may be considered for publishing, if the authors rewrite the methodology, the presentation of the data and their discussion in order to make their conclusions clearer.

 

 

 

Author Response

We are very thankful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper and for the willingness of the review panel to help us improve our paper further by giving us their constructive comments and suggestions. Below we summarize the revisions we made to the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

1. The work could provide certain clarity on the importance of the sustainable development goals on teaching and learning processes in higher education institutions. However, the tables used are very long and do not provide relevant information.

Respond

We have added a short explanation of the importance of the SDGs on teaching and learning in HEIs. Please refer to the highlighted areas on page 2, lines 49-52.

2. I consider that the number of interviews (16), where students are a limited number (5), does not clearly define the trend of the results of the use of the strategy in the perception of learning about the sustainable development goals. From a methodological point of view, the authors should clarify how the interview data were extracted and why such precise validity is given to the responses of the interviewees.

 

Respond

We have made the necessary changes to the methodology section by adding more details on how research participants were selected. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 8, lines 199-209, lines 214-243). We have also added more details on the coding process of the data. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 9, lines 255-275)

 

3. The results have been presented in a chaotic manner. They are not comprehensible because of their length.  It is not possible to follow up the discussion and, finally on conclusions.  I would recommend that the authors simplify the tables and use indicators from the 16 interviews to visualize the data obtained, to discuss them with further support from the bibliography, and to do the conclusions more evident. The results have been presented in a chaotic manner. They are not comprehensible because of their length. It is not possible to follow up the discussion.

 

Response

Thank you for the feedback. We have removed all the tables in the result section and written them in paragraphs instead. Please refer to Section 4. Results page 9. We have also made the necessary changes to the result section by including more excerpts from the interviews and focus groups and mentioning the code of the participant. Overall, we have made significant changes to the results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Please refer to the highlighted areas in Sections 4-7.

 

4. The work needs a lot of improvement before it can be accepted. The results should be organised in a coherent way with the discussion and conclusions.

 

Response

Thank you for the feedback. We have removed all the tables in the result section and written them in paragraphs instead. Please refer to Section 4. Results page 9. We have also made the necessary changes to the result section by including more excerpts from the interviews and focus groups and mentioning the code of the participants. Overall, we have made significant changes to the results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Please refer to the highlighted areas in Sections 4-7.

 

5. I considered that the manuscript may be considered for publishing, if the authors rewrite the methodology, the presentation of the data and their discussion in order to make their conclusions clearer.

Response

Thank you so much for your feedback. We have made the following changes to the methodology sections:

• We have added context regarding the research environment in which the study was conducted. Additionally, we further clarify the applicability of the methodology used in this study. Please see the highlighted texts in the methodology section (Section 3, pages 7-8, paragraphs 1-4)
• We have added more details on how research participants were selected. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 8, lines 214-226).
• We have provided separate information for the focus group and the interview processes. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 8, lines 227-246)
• We have also added more details on the coding process of the data. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 9, lines 252-271)

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes a new CoDesignS ESD Framework that expands understanding of educational competencies in higher education in three ways: First, a focus on sustainable practices; Second, design and delivery of the competencies to support cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral domains; Third, transformative pedagogies and methods. The elements of the framework is of high relevance and importance internationally in higher education.

Although the sample size was relatively small to evaluate the framework, and they used simple qualitative efforts, the methods were appropriate for the exploratory nature of a study to present a new framework. Results include specific quotes and examples to frame and support findings.

The narrative in the discussion is clear and focused.

Author Response

We are very thankful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper and for the willingness of the review panel to help us improve our paper further by giving us their constructive comments and suggestions. Below we summarize the revisions we made to the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

 

This article proposes a new CoDesignS ESD Framework that expands understanding of educational competencies in higher education in three ways: First, a focus on sustainable practices; Second, design and delivery of the competencies to support cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral domains; Third, transformative pedagogies and methods. The elements of the framework is of high relevance and importance internationally in higher education.

Although the sample size was relatively small to evaluate the framework, and they used simple qualitative efforts, the methods were appropriate for the exploratory nature of a study to present a new framework. Results include specific quotes and examples to frame and support findings.

The narrative in the discussion is clear and focused.

Response

Thank you so much for your kind feedback. We truly appreciate it.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate that the paper approaches a  topic of high academic interest.

The research can bring a valuable contribution to the literature in the field.

We recommend that the authors  address and fix the following issues:

- to mention the aim of the research;

- to add the research questions;

- to detail separately the specific methodology used to conduct  the interview session and of the focus group (there is not enough information about  how the focus group  took place over web-conferencing );

- to give more details on how the research participants have been selected;

- to detail more the coding process (themes..)of the data collected through interviews and focus-group;

- to present the results with more excerpts from the interviews and focus group (also with mentioning the code of the participant);

- to discuss the research results in light of more studies/research;

- to delimitate clearly the limits of research;

- to present explicitly the ethics of research (did the authors apply Informed Consent to the research participants?);

- to specify the source of the Figure 1;

- to specify the source of Table 1 (is the Table the author's elaboration based on the source [1]?);

-  to specify the source of  Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.

 

 

Author Response

We are very thankful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper and for the willingness of the review panel to help us improve our paper further by giving us their constructive comments and suggestions. Below we summarize the revisions we made to the manuscript following the reviewer's comments.

We appreciate that the paper approaches a topic of high academic interest. The research can bring a valuable contribution to the literature in the field.

We recommend that the authors address and fix the following issues:

1. to mention the aim of the research;

Response:

We have revised the last paragraph of the introduction section to clearly state the objective of this research. (Please refer to Section 1: Introduction, page 2. Lines 80-90 & 94-96)

2. to add the research questions;

Response:

We have added the following research questions as per your recommendations (See Section 1: Introduction, page 2. Line 85-88)

• Research Question 1: How effective is the CoDesignS ESD Framework in operationalizing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) competencies within higher education institutions?
• Research Question 2: What roles do transformative pedagogies, as outlined in the CoDesignS ESD Framework, play in enhancing sustainability education across different educational levels?

3. to detail separately the specific methodology used to conduct the interview session and of the focus group (there is not enough information about how the focus group took place over web-conferencing);

Response:

We have made the necessary changes to the methodology section by providing separate information for the focus group and the interview processes. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 8, lines 227-246)

4. to give more details on how the research participants have been selected;

Response:

We have made the necessary changes to the methodology section by adding more details on how research participants were selected. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 8, lines 214-226)

5. to detail more the coding process (themes..) of the data collected through interviews and focus-group;

Response:

We have made the necessary changes to the methodology section by adding more details on the coding process of the data. (See Section 3: Methods and Approach, page 9, lines 255-275)

6. to present the results with more excerpts from the interviews and focus group (also with mentioning the code of the participant);

Response:

Thank you so much for this recommendation. We have made the necessary changes to the result section (Section 4) by including more excerpts from the interviews and focus groups and mentioning the code of the participant.

7. to discuss the research results in light of more studies/research;

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more references to the discussion to align closely with other studies done in the field.

8. to delimitate clearly the limits of research;

Response

We have created a new section called Limitation and future research to clearly state the limitations of this research (See section 6, page 21).

9. to present explicitly the ethics of research (did the authors apply Informed Consent to the research participants?);

Response

Yes, it was stated at the end of the methodology section (page 9, lines 276-278).  

“The study was conducted according to a research protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board at the American University of Sharjah (Application reference 22-004).”

We have also added that we have received consent from each participant involved in this study.

10. to specify the source of the Figure 1;

Response:

The figure was created by the lead researcher who is one of the directors at the Association for Learning Designs and Education for Sustainable Development (ALDESD). The figure is available through the ALDESD’s website. We have now added the source to the figure.

The source for Figure 1 is ALDESD [17]

11. to specify the source of Table 1 (is the Table the author's elaboration based on the source [1]?);

Response:

The source of Table 1 was already included. It was based on the ESD Learning Objectives of the UNESCO report [1]  

12. to specify the source of Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.

Response:

Tables 3, 4 & 5 were based on Tables 1 & 2. However, in this revised version, we have removed Tables 3, 4, and 5 and presented the results in writing.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

This new version of your paper seems to be more in keeping with the nature of your work.

Best regards

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the reviewer's suggestions and recommendations.

We appreciate that the paper can be accepted in its present form.