Teachers’ Resilience Scale for Sustainability Enabled by ICT/Metaverse Learning Technologies: Factorial Structure, Reliability, and Validation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTopic
1. In the topic (line 2), “The Teacher’s”, is this about a single teacher or teachers in general? In the abstract and body of the paper, it says "teachers'". It may be a grammatical issue and needs correction.
2. In the topic (3), What does the author want to communicate by using these two important words: "Sustainability Resilience"? It seems there is a misuse of the words.
Introduction
3. The topic and the phrases “(factor 1: ‘personal ICT/MeEfS resilience’, and factor 2: ‘reflexive practice’),” (20) are mixed up with the statement in lines 22-24 “the two hypothesized predictors regressed self-efficacy and transformative teaching beliefs significantly contributed to teachers’ ICT/MeEfS resilience”. Readers may be confused from reading these lines (22-24) in identifying the dependent and independent variables.
4. Can resilience be a factor by its own? Resilience in what do you think can tackle the climate crisis (44)?
5. Eleven lines (35-45) are used to explain climate change/ crisis. Is this study about climate change? No! Please minimize your content here and introduce the topic of the research.
6. The current literature does not use 'transformative' and 'transformational' interchangeably as used in line 49 & 58. Please use one of them consistently as per the context of the manuscript.
7. What is the difference between 'where they want to go' and 'what they want to become' (71) in the context of this manuscript? The first phrase is used repeatedly latter in the paper.
8. Lines 117 – 121, please make it two sentences for clarity.
9. Readers need to know your research objective before your hypothesis (129 – 131). I suggest focusing on the research objective rather than presenting related conceptions in the last three pages.
Materials and Methods
10. Why do you use the word 'materials' here (133)? Have you done the research in a laboratory? This is a thesis format for natural sciences who conduct their research in a laboratory. If it is about teaching or education which is explained below, the appropriate term is 'methodology'.
11. The paper says: “As it has been pointed out, this study was designed for and carried out in the context of the ICTeEfS project that was funded by the European Commission…” (135 – 136). But this was not pointed out before these lines.
12. Researchers can provide aims and objectives of the research to participants but not 'voluntary participation' and 'anonymity' (155). Please rewrite the sentence so that the ethical protocols used in the paper can be communicated properly.
13. The sentence in lines 157 – 159 should appear in the first page of the paper. Readers were not aware of the objective of the paper in the last three pages.
14. Take also the sentence in lines 159 – 161 to the introduction section to make the preceding pages clear for the readers.
15. Edit the sentence: “This scale was based on a 10-item list based on a literature review.” (164 – 165)
16. I checked it again, I do not think the sentence in lines 166 – 168 was mentioned before. It says: “As has been pointed out earlier, the two independent factors or predictors, namely ICTeEfS self-confidence and transformative teaching beliefs were previously validated…”. But, if it was already mentioned, why do you need mentioning it again? It does not contribute to explain anything in this paragraph.
Discussion
17. The first 37 lines (260 – 297) have little relevance for a discussion section. It seems that the author is introducing the topic and objectives. Please take these ideas and integrate it with the introduction above and minimize the content.
18. The 'discussion’ section is not focused on the findings of this study. Readers would like to see critical discussion on the 'construction and validation of a new scale measuring teachers’ ICT/Metaverse-enabled Education for Sustainability (ICT/MeEfS) resilience'. How is this result vis-à-vis the current literature?
19. The conclusion mentioned very important ideas regarding the limitations of the paper. Now, the question is how can readers use the findings with all these limitations? For instance, why did you reach only ICT coordinators?
My comments and suggestions are also shown in the attached pdf below.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate level of editing is required. The use of active and passive voices, some of the grammatical structures, and inconsistencies in the use of relevant phrases/ words should be corrected. I mentioned some of these issues in the attached feedback as well as in the pdf manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you ve ry much for your meaningful comments, which added much to the improvement of the manuscript.
Topic
- In the topic (line 2), “The Teacher’s”, is this about a single teacher or teachers in general? In the abstract and body of the paper, it says "teachers'". It may be a grammatical issue and needs correction.
RESPONSE- Corrected
- In the topic (3), What does the author want to communicate by using these two important words: "Sustainability Resilience"? It seems there is a misuse of the words.
RESPONSE- Title is rephrased
Introduction
- The topic and the phrases “(factor 1: ‘personal ICT/MeEfS resilience’, and factor 2: ‘reflexive practice’),” (20) are mixed up with the statement in lines 22-24 “the two hypothesized predictors regressed self-efficacy and transformative teaching beliefs significantly contributed to teachers’ ICT/MeEfS resilience”. Readers may be confused from reading these lines (22-24) in identifying the dependent and independent variables.
RESPONSE- Corrected. Changes in red color.
- Can resilience be a factor by its own? Resilience in what do you think can tackle the climate crisis (44)?
RESPONSE- Another study can consider it a factor by itself. The climate crisis is emphasized because of its global impact. However, you are correct that it was necessary to minimize it since it was not the topic's focus. This has been done whenever possible.
- Eleven lines (35-45) are used to explain climate change/ crisis. Is this study about climate change? No! Please minimize your content here and introduce the topic of the research.
RESPONSE- It is done!
- The current literature does not use 'transformative' and 'transformational' interchangeably as used in line 49 & 58. Please use one of them consistently as per the context of the manuscript.
RESPONSE- It is done. Transformative is used in the whole text.
- What is the difference between 'where they want to go' and 'what they want to become' (71) in the context of this manuscript? The first phrase is used repeatedly latter in the paper.
RESPONSE- Where we want to go refers to the goal. To become implies the process of reaching the goal. Transformation is far more critical.
- Lines 117 – 121, please make it two sentences for clarity.
RESPONSE- Done! Changes in red color.
- Readers need to know your research objective before your hypothesis (129 – 131). I suggest focusing on the research objective rather than presenting related conceptions in the last three pages.
RESPONSE- This is done. See changes in red (lines 125-144).
Materials and Methods
- Why do you use the word 'materials' here (133)? Have you done the research in a laboratory? This is a thesis format for natural sciences who conduct their research in a laboratory. If it is about teaching or education which is explained below, the appropriate term is 'methodology'.
RESPONSE- Methodology is used!
- The paper says: “As it has been pointed out, this study was designed for and carried out in the context of the ICTeEfS project that was funded by the European Commission…” (135 – 136). But this was not pointed out before these lines.
RESPONSE- You are correct. The “As it has been pointed out” is deleted.
- Researchers can provide aims and objectives of the research to participants but not 'voluntary participation' and 'anonymity' (155). Please rewrite the sentence so that the ethical protocols used in the paper can be communicated properly.
RESPONSE- It is rewritten!
- The sentence in lines 157 – 159 should appear in the first page of the paper. Readers were not aware of the objective of the paper in the last three pages.
RESPONSE- This is done. See changes in red (lines 125-144).
- Take also the sentence in lines 159 – 161 to the introduction section to make the preceding pages clear for the readers.
RESPONSE- This is done!
- Edit the sentence: “This scale was based on a 10-item list based on a literature review.” (164 – 165)
RESPONSE- It is edited!
- I checked it again, I do not think the sentence in lines 166 – 168 was mentioned before. It says: “As has been pointed out earlier, the two independent factors or predictors, namely ICTeEfS self-confidence and transformative teaching beliefs were previously validated…”. But, if it was already mentioned, why do you need mentioning it again? It does not contribute to explain anything in this paragraph.
RESPONSE- This has been removed!
Discussion
- The first 37 lines (260 – 297) have little relevance for a discussion section. It seems that the author is introducing the topic and objectives. Please take these ideas and integrate it with the introduction above and minimize the content.
RESPONSE- The text was moved to lines 125-144 in the introduction.
- The 'discussion’ section is not focused on the findings of this study. Readers would like to see critical discussion on the 'construction and validation of a new scale measuring teachers’ ICT/Metaverse-enabled Education for Sustainability (ICT/MeEfS) resilience'. How is this result vis-à-vis the current literature?
RESPONSE- By moving lines 260-297 to the introduction, the discussion of the findings and the relation to previous research has become more visible and enriched with new references.
- The conclusion mentioned very important ideas regarding the limitations of the paper. Now, the question is how can readers use the findings with all these limitations? For instance, why did you reach only ICT coordinators?
RESPONSE- The study focuses on ICT coordinators because 1) the study requires the subjects to have expertise on ICTs; 2) the role played by ICT coordinators was critical to promoting further training in the school districts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study focuses on the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and Metaverse learning technologies in Education for Sustainability (EfS), particularly in Southeast Asia. It investigates the development and validation of a teachers' resilience scale, emphasizing self-efficacy and transformative teaching beliefs as predictors of ICT/MeEfS resilience. The research involved 1815 in-service teachers from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, revealing a two-factor model—personal resilience and reflexive practice—with a high reliability score. The study highlights the importance of shifting from transmissive to transformative pedagogies to address sustainability challenges, advocating for the incorporation of sustainability issues and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into educational curricula through ICTs and Metaverse technologies
The study is very good, but requires further improvements:
1. In the introduction, please state clearly the study objectives, the research questions and the gaps in the current literature.
2. Separate the literature review to improve the readability of your manuscript.
3. Engage with latest published articles in the filed, most of your references are outdated. I suggest you look to the following and many more:
- Al-kfairy, M., Ahmed, S. and Khalil, A., 2024. Factors Impacting Users’ Willingness to Adopt and Utilize the Metaverse in Education: A Systematic Review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, p.100459.
- Al-kfairy, M., Alzaabi, M., Snoh, B., Almarzooqi, H. and Alnaqbi, W., 2024, May. Metaverse-Based Classroom: The Good and the Bad. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
and many more.
4. Present your conceptual model in a figure, so that we understand what you are referring to.
5. Why you used PCA, why not SEM, which is a better choice in this kind of research, please clarify this.
6. indicate the study practical and theoretical implications of this study.
Good Luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the meaningful comments and suggestion which contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
The study is very good, but requires further improvements:
- In the introduction, please state clearly the study objectives, the research questions and the gaps in the current literature.
RESPONSE- This is done. See lines 125-144 in red color in the introduction.
- Separate the literature review to improve the readability of your manuscript.
RESPONSE- Through the revised version, we think that it does not make sense to do that.
- Engage with latest published articles in the filed, most of your references are outdated. I suggest you look to the following and many more:
RESPONSE- The literature has been enriched.
Present your conceptual model in a figure, so that we understand what you are referring to.
RESPONSE—The multiple regression analysis focuses on two independent variables, so it is not different in terms of understanding to present it in graphic form.
- Why you used PCA, why not SEM, which is a better choice in this kind of research, please clarify this.
RESPONSE- The study primarily focuses on validating a scale measuring ICT/MeEfS teacher resilience, and thus PCA a factor analysis method is suitable.
- indicate the study practical and theoretical implications of this study.
RESPONSE- Done. See the text in red (discussion and conclusion).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Delete "The", the first word in the topic. The topic shall be read as "Teachers’ Resilience Scale for Sustainability Enabled..."
- No improvement is made in line 20 and 22-24. In line 20, personal ICT/MeEfS resilience” and “reflexive practice”) seem independent variables. In lines 22-24, "teachers’ ICT/MeEfS resilience" is a dependent variable. You may explain if you believe this is correct.
- I do not see any improvement on my previous comment "Eleven lines (35-45) are used to explain climate change/ crisis. Is this study about climate change? No! Please minimize your content here and introduce the topic of the research." Or, justify to the editor n your response why this is needed.
- My other comment "What is the difference between 'where they want to go' and 'what they want to become' (71) in the context of this manuscript?" was not captured. If you believe the importance of including both, please convince the editor.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language is still an issue and needs editing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Here are my responses with thanks!
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Delete "The", the first word in the topic. The topic shall be read as "Teachers’ Resilience Scale for Sustainability Enabled..."
RESPONSE- DONE
- No improvement is made in line 20 and 22-24. In line 20, personal ICT/MeEfS resilience” and “reflexive practice”) seem independent variables. In lines 22-24, "teachers’ ICT/MeEfS resilience" is a dependent variable. You may explain if you believe this is correct.
RESPONSE- I think there is a misunderstanding here. “Personal ICT/MeEfS resilience” and “reflective practice” are the interpreted components or factors extracted from the ICT/MeEfS resilience scale (dependent variable) through the PCA analysis. Thus, they cannot be treated as independent variables since they are part of the dependent variable!!
- I do not see any improvement on my previous comment "Eleven lines (35-45) are used to explain climate change/ crisis. Is this study about climate change? No! Please minimize your content here and introduce the topic of the research." Or, justify to the editor n your response why this is needed.
RESPONSE- Elimination was made, but as pointed it does not imply that if you stress climate change as the most critical sustainability issue, reflecting SDG13, the study focuses on this issue. As you see in the lines 35-45, this is clear!
- My other comment, "What is the difference between 'where they want to go' and 'what they want to become' (71) in the context of this manuscript?" was not captured. If you believe the importance of including both, please convince the editor.
RESPONSE—The previous comments explained my approach to these two concepts. I stress ‘becoming’ as a dynamic concept that reflects a critical competence: ‘learning to become’. This also adds to the quest for a paradigm shift: from learning to know or even learning to be (see becoming vs. being) to learning to become (underpinned by a transformative and emancipatory perspective).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the responses
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am glad to hear that you are satisfied with my previous responses and that no further issues were raised.
Thanks a lot!
