The Phenomenon of Lecturer Competences as a Prerequisite for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Ideas in the Context of Student-Centred Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the issue of lecturer-student interaction in higher education, focusing on the student's perception of the lecturer's competencies and personality traits that contribute to successful, student-centred studies. Based on a 2019 survey of 390 Lithuanian university and college students, the research aptly highlights the multidimensional nature of the lecturer's personality, emphasizing not only subject competence but also the pivotal role of educational competence, particularly the ability to motivate and engage students.

To enhance the paper's context and relevance, I suggest incorporating a quick mention and references to research on effective student-centric education methodologies that already exist, namely, in the Design Studio Educational Setting. Already in the 1980s, Donald Schön mentioned how the Design Studio should be the template for future higher education. I suggest the addition of Goldschmidt et al. (2010) and Ferreira (2018), which provide valuable insights into active student involvement and the centrality of dialogue in higher education, enriching the discussion on fostering meaningful lecturer-student dynamics. This inclusion strengthens the paper by aligning it with established frameworks that demonstrate effective methods for promoting student engagement and participation in the learning process. Otherwise, good work.

Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H., & Dafni, I. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. Ai Edam, 24(3), 285-302.

Ferreira, J. (2018). We need to talk about it–placing dialogue at the centre of design education. In DS 93: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2018), Dyson School of Engineering, Imperial College, London. 6th-7th September 2018 (pp. 369-374).

Author Response

Thank you for the deep analysis of the article and the understanding of the multidimensionality of the topic. Thank you for your time and motivational reflection. We did what we could. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting study regarding what students value in instructors in contemporary education which (at least in theory) supports student-centered models. Very interesting insights too.  Thank you for sharing.

Some comments for enhancement:

a.      However, the connection with sustainable development is not obvious. In the first part (theoretical substantion of the need for lecturer competences in response to student-centered studies), there is no connection between education/pedagogy and the advancement of sustainable development. As you have structured the paper, it appears that you are coming only from educational literature – but no awareness of the literature on Education for Sustainability. This would be a worthy and needed addition to this first part if you want to connect it to sustainability and this particular journal. Critical pedagogy (Freire, Giroux etc.) has also talked about the role of the instructors for education for social change.

I suggest that a reference to the connection of education and sustainable development and the needed transformation (similar to the one on lines 390-410) should be in the first section, to discuss/explore what is really needed in the educational setting for this transformation to occur. There is relevant literature on this topic. It is good to use it as a context, so that you then can base your conclusions about education and sustainable development on a more solid ground.

b.      It would also be good to clarify early in the paper what you mean by competences and skills. Also, indicate which 'competencies' are important and why. (If you look into the critical pedagogy literature as well, you may have a richer understanding of what ‘competences’ instructors need; if they are ‘competences’ or something else too…)

c.      Lines 444-448; What about the transition from individual to social change? This is especially relevant when discussing the connection between education and the sustainable development transitioj. I think some literature on Education for Sustainability and critical pedagogy may give you some interesting insights here. (supporting some of your statement in lines approximately 460-475 too).

d.      Methodology: so, given that you had open ended questions, you did some content analysis; you coded the results to identify basic categories of answers; and you came up with these categories. You may want to more explicitly state this process.

e.      You also indicated in lines 205-210, that the more frequently something was stated as a first option, the more significant it was. But, you do not seem to discuss this relative ‘weighting’ of the answers in the results section. Maybe some relevant comments in the results section will be useful. You have some comments on the ‘weighting’ within each category (e.g. lines 313-320 for the personality competences), but what do you conclude / think about the fact that 25 respondents chose ‘a professional in own field’ versus 10 that selected 'understanding’, or 3 for ‘honesty’ or ‘openness’, or 7 for ‘evoking student interest’ or 5 for ‘lecturer’s communication with students’?

 

I think that your paper is very interesting for contemporary higher education, with some very important insights. I believe the theoretical part needs to be enhanced with theory from Education for Sustainabilty (EfS) and critical pedagogy to connect it with sustainable development; otherwise, it is an education-centered paper that should be submitted in an education-centered journal in my view, unless you enhance the theoretical section with EfS literature . The methodology and results section may be somewhat enhanced too (please see my comments above); but they are generally very good.

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable insights. Thanks to you, we can have a better quality article. Thank you for your time and in-depth analysis. We spent a lot of time adjusting. We did what we could. Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well organized internally.

The research developed is focused on analyzing the competencies of the university professor, understood as an essential basis for the cohesion of educational processes. 

The theoretical framework, related to current higher education, teacher competencies and their valuation by students, is well supported, as are the conclusions. 

The tables and figures help to understand the text. 

The references are adequate and pertinent. 

The qualitative methodology is supported by a sample of 390 participants, Lithuanian university students, who responded to a survey conducted in 2019 with open-ended questions.  

The conclusions verify that the stated research hypotheses obtain answers as the analysis of the survey data shows that the most important category for Lithuanian students is the teacher's educational competence (98 statements), followed by the category of personality (76 statements) and the category of subject competence (61 statements).

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable insights. Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on an original and innovative study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your time and motivational reflection.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the time and effort you put in revising your first draft and the enhancements you made to the article. You added a reference to sustainability towards the beginning; you provided more information on your methodology; a paragraph on literature relating with education for sustainability, etc. All these were useful to better connect it with the title of the article. I also noted that your conclusion includes a tangential reference to sustainable development principles. I believe more emphasis on that would have been useful; it would have been good if you had revised it too. 

All the best with your interesting work.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions for improving the manuscript are greatly appreciated. We have expanded the text of the conclusions. New corrections in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow. Together we strive for higher quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx