Advancing Sustainability through Higher Education: Student Teachers Integrate Inner Development Goals (IDG) and Future-Oriented Methodologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines some of the challenges associated with integrating didactic models and design thinking for educational development in the field of teaching and learning for sustainability.

While the manuscript is extensively developed and aims for a structured presentation, it suffers from ambiguity and lack of clarity that can impede the reader's understanding and engagement. The title of the manuscript does not adequately reflect the focus on student evaluations and reflections, which are central to the study's methodology and aims. The manuscript currently lacks clarity regarding the methods employed for redesigning higher education didactics, as well as the foundational basis for such a redefinition. A broader approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the educational dynamics and better support the proposed changes in higher education didactics.

 Also the manuscript could significantly benefit from a more comprehensive and transparent discussion of its limitations. It is essential for the author to discuss the rationale behind prioritizing student feedback and to explore potential biases or gaps this approach may introduce.

Author Response

Thanks for the reading and the advices in improving the text.
Please, see att. doc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here is the feedback:

1.       The research question(s) are not very explicit in the introduction. That has implication when reading the methods and findings. First line in introduction section does not read well. What do authors mean by “point of departure”?

2.       The abstract states that the “study explores how different augmented reality (AR) applications can enable new ways of learning”. That gives the readers the impression that the study explored different AR software applications that integrates digital visual content. AR is commonly understood as the integration of digital information with the user's environment in real time. However, as stated by the participants, “the workshop was designed to utilize the innovation sprint format (Braw et al., 2022) to promote collaboration and to stimulate idea development in a playful way (Komarkova et al., 2015)”.

a.       The abstract wording should reflect what was done for this study.

b.       Maybe it would be better to define terms. For example, in this study, what do they mean by AR? Maybe it has a different meaning that has nothing to do with the interactive software app.

c.        If the study indeed explored different AR apps, then that information is not clear in the methods section.

d.       How were the “new ways of learning” stated in the abstract evaluated, what were the indicators for new ways of learning for the students? That should be highlighted in the methods section.

The sample size was good for qualitative data and not so much for quantitative approach. The descriptive statistics claims made might not mean much because of the sample size and that should be highlighted. For example, page 9 where the authors mentioned that “median student evaluation was very positive” … that claim needs caution and other descriptive statics claims in the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks for the reading and the advices in improving the text.
Please, see att. doc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current study is addressing important topics in contemporary education and explores AR applications in the context of sustainable development. It is of expected to provide insights for implementation of education for sustainable development and challenges behind. While it is of interest and significance, I do have some observations and comments for consideration.

1.

Introduction section (p.1): I think in the first paragraph, before specifying the focus on SDG 4.7, the main theme of education for sustainable development and global citizenship can be supplemented, with other major targets of SDG 4, and why SDG 4.7 is specifically informed in this study.

2.

While there are background details of Stormathon workshop in section 2, I suggest the introduction section be strengthened with some recent studies and references addressing the important themes. For example, in the first paragraph on p.1 (the introduction section), it is good for mentioning of employing digital learning as an integral tool within a culture of collaboration, it would be helpful if author can provide further illustrations and references, as also considering the growing studies in relation to pedagogy of emerging technologies during the era of digitalization and artificial intelligence. Such pedagogic implications or references of review are important which also support the further related descriptions in section 3. In addition, I understand that one of the focus is on design thinking as mentioned in 3.1, it would be desirable to include recent studies in relation to the adopted approaches regarding education for sustainable development. This include a variety of thinking approaches as also implicated in section 3.5 for the competencies in relation to sustainability, and also descriptions in figure 2 (page 10). For example, there are related recent studies, including some addressing the incorporation of systems thinking in education for a sustainable environment, design thinking and sustainability, etc. These would also supplement and support relevant descriptions of “transdisciplinary teaching, transcending the boundaries set by school subjects…” on p.7 of discussion section.

3.

The abstract should be presented with a more focused objective and explicitly described with the study approach used in the current work, e.g. qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research, etc.

4.

While there are mentioning of the framework of AR in section 3, would author consider providing further details of what applications exactly were implemented in the workshop. Currently, it is unclear to me and tabulation of the execution and implementation schedule details may help the presentation, these would also help provide information on how the adoptions are related to implementation of sustainability education.

5.

In the method section on p.5, some supplementary information can be illustrated. How are the teacher participants selected, are there any inclusion criteria for the sample, or any exclusion criteria for the participants. There are information on the age and geographic mentioned in 4.2. Are there further demographic details including the distribution in each category, and also the academic discipline / expertise teaching subject that would be provided?

6.

p.6, section 4.3, there is mentioning of surveys and questionnaires. What were the items and questions used in these instruments, are there any further details (in addition to the information in table 1 of p.5), e.g. the nature, length, items of the questionnaire, are the questions in the survey qualitative or quantitative, and which components of action cycle A and cycle B are used for thematic analysis would be better stated in section 4.3 and 4.4. What have been asked in the essay that are related to the analysis? Are there any other team member besides the author of the manuscript that are responsible for the content analysis?

7.

Based on the current context of the manuscript and previous mentioned comments, it would be good to have a separate distinct section which is to acknowledge the limitation of the current study design, any bias that may result from the current sample, composition with regards to the gender and age, study methods, would also be acknowledged.

Thank you for considering the details.

Author Response

Thanks for the reading and the advices in improving the text.
Please, see att. doc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The substantial work done by the authors to address my previous comments, as well as the detailed response letter, are acknowledged. The current manuscript has benefited from the significant improvement made in the revision. 

Regarding my previous comment 1 and the authors’ query in the response letter, I am fine with the current supplemented text descriptions in relation to the SDG, and the inserted text is sufficient. 

Regarding my previous comment 3, and as also mentioned in authors’ response letter in point 3 on p.3, yes, I agree that there are many studies in recent years, while the new added study reference is good, it would also be helpful, in view of the evolving and vast studies, if authors can consider adding some recent systematic review of pedagogy of emerging technologies during the era of digitalization and artificial intelligence, cases presented in these references (even in specific discipline subjects) are relevant to the current study and in the context of sustainable development for education in the new era. 

I have no other major changes suggested but would finally like to raise an observation for further consideration. I understand there is need for revision in the keywords. However, the updated set is:

“Keywords: bridging theoretical-practical didactic modelling; critical eco-reflexive voices; disruptive design thinking; extended reality; higher education didactics for sustainability (HEDS); inner devel opment goals (IDGs); key competencies in sustainability education; powerful knowings; re-design ing higher education didactics; sustainability commitment; transition”, which to me is somewhat lengthy and should be more specific to the study context, also it is mentioned in the guideline “List three to ten pertinent keywords specific to the article yet reasonably common within the subject discipline”. 

Thank you again for the substantial efforts in the previous revision to incorporate my comments well.

Author Response

Please, see author answers in att. doc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf