A Systematic Review of Curriculum Sustainability at University: A Key Challenge for Improving the Professional Development of Teachers of the Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There are no gaps for relevant review research of curriculum sustainability in the introduction part, which also lacks research significance.

2. The research questions should be displayed and highlighted.

3. No relevant software was used in the process of documents collection and analysis. Some software（such as Nvivo）can help analyse and sort documents.

4. The main objective of the present study is to identify and analyse the main studies developed on curriculum sustainability in the initial education of primary school teachers. Also, it aims at synthesizing the existing literature of ESD from the aspects of theoretical frameworks of reference, main existing lines of research, methodologies and strategies used, results obtained and main conclusions.

   In research results, specific results analyzed the main themes, main findings and conclusions, progress of ESD (facilitators, challenges and benchmarks), need for education in ESD (future education in EDS), and the impact of research on ESD. The specific results can not correspond with the aspects of the second research objective.

5. There is a lack of references in the discussion part which is more or less insufficient. Does this research need to be compared with previous reviews to replenish the discussion part?

6. Although there are research inspirations in conclusion part: students need sustainability competencies, teachers need to change and adapt to the educational situation, the initial teacher education and a curriculum sustainability also need changes. However, the research inspirations did not follow the main structure of this study. There is a lack of the inspirations from the aspects in the results part, such as the main findings and conclusion, research methodology, research participants and main themes of EDS. The implications and inspirations can be made according to the analysis of results part. In addition, the limitations of this study are not revealed. In summary, the conclusion part should be enriched.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

 

1. Reviewer’s comment: “There are no gaps for relevant review research of curriculum sustainability in the introduction part, which also lacks research significance”. Author’s reply: A description of the problem to be investigated has been introduced in the introduction. In addition, the order of some paragraphs has been modified in order to understand the strategies and the context in which the research is developed.
2. Reviewer’s comment: “The research questions should be displayed and highlighted”. Author’s reply: Research questions have been included after the research objectives.
3. Reviewer’s comment: “No relevant software was used in the process of documents collection and analysis. Some software（such as Nvivo）can help analyse and sort documents”. Author’s replay: Indeed, we have not used any software for content analysis. We welcome this suggestion for future systematic reviews, in addition to the fact that the authors normally use Nvivo for their qualitative designs and are therefore familiar with its treatment and the advantages of its use.
4. Reviewer’s comment: “The main objective of the present study is to identify and analyse the main studies developed on curriculum sustainability in the initial education of primary school teachers. Also, it aims at synthesizing the existing literature of ESD from the aspects of theoretical frameworks of reference, main existing lines of research, methodologies and strategies used, results obtained and main conclusions. In research results, specific results analyzed the main themes, main findings and conclusions, progress of ESD (facilitators, challenges and benchmarks), need for education in ESD (future education in EDS), and the impact of research on ESD. The specific results can not correspond with the aspects of the second research objective”. Author’s replay: The section on objectives has been clarified, and therefore, there is a general objective and two specific objectives derived from it. The term secondary has been eliminated from the second objective because it was confusing, since the two specific objectives are of equal importance in the research. Consequently, the results presented in section 3.2 (the title has also been changed) do correspond to the second specific objective.
5. Reviewer’s comment: “There is a lack of references in the discussion part which is more or less insufficient. Does this research need to be compared with previous reviews to replenish the discussion part?”. Author’s replay: More current references have been included in the introduction and discussion section.
6. Reviewer’s comment: “Although there are research inspirations in conclusion part: students need sustainability competencies, teachers need to change and adapt to the educational situation, the initial teacher education and a curriculum sustainability also need changes. However, the research inspirations did not follow the main structure of this study. There is a lack of the inspirations from the aspects in the results part, such as the main findings and conclusion, research methodology, research participants and main themes of EDS. The implications and inspirations can be made according to the analysis of results part. In addition, the limitations of this study are not revealed. In summary, the conclusion part should be enriched.” Author’s replay: The conclusions section has been improved, including a synthesis of the main results, as well as inspiring lines for future research and limitations of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The review study may be valued as the authors have attempted to explore the systematic review of the curriculum sustainability at university: a key challenge for improving the professional development of teachers of the future however; I have the following reservations that may develop the quality of the manuscript if appropriately addressed:

1.       The abstract section is not well written; clear objectives and research questions are missing. Detail description of the data analysis and interpretation mechanism is missing in the abstract. Further conclusions and recommendations are not well stated. It does not reveal clearly what the authors intend to suggest based on the findings.

2.       Introduction/literature section is well written. Further, a good Literature review was mentioned, but the study was not justified by a good theoretical background.  The manuscript does not contextualize the study with the relevant literature properly. The author needs to identify an important knowledge gap in the discipline to strengthen the manuscript’s appeal. Need to develop a good rationale by the authors and should be justified by good arguments. The rationale given in lines 81 to 88 is unjustified.  

3.       The research questions must be mentioned to guide the study toward authentic findings.

4. The research tool must be justified through authentic references.

5. A data Analysis procedure was adopted but should authenticate the use by providing some solid arguments in favour of the data analysis procedure.

6. The whole paper should be revisited by a native language and research expert.

7. To sum up, the study addressed an important topic; however, a valid theoretical background is needed for anchoring the roots of the study in the available paradigm of knowledge.  

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

1. Reviewer’s comment: “The abstract section is not well written; clear objectives and research questions are missing. Detail description of the data analysis and interpretation mechanism is missing in the abstract. Further conclusions and recommendations are not well stated. It does not reveal clearly what the authors intend to suggest based on the findings”. Author’s replay: The summary has been modified to include the objectives, a clarification of the analysis and interpretation of data, conclusions and additional recommendations.
2. Reviewer’s comment: “Introduction/literature section is well written. Further, a good Literature review was mentioned, but the study was not justified by a good theoretical background. The manuscript does not contextualize the study with the relevant literature properly. The author needs to identify an important knowledge gap in the discipline to strengthen the manuscript’s appeal. Need to develop a good rationale by the authors and should be justified by good arguments. The rationale given in lines 81 to 88 is unjustified”. Author’s replay: A detailed description of the problem to be investigated has been introduced, contextualizing the study with the relevant literature. In addition, with the incorporation of the problem to be investigated, the knowledge gap of ESD in teacher education has been identified. Therefore, lines 81-88 are justified.
3. Reviewer’s comment: “The research questions must be mentioned to guide the study toward authentic findings”. Author’s replay: Research questions have been incorporated below the objectives.
4. Reviewer’s comment: “The research tool must be justified through authentic references”. Author’s replay: References justifying the research tool have been included (line 176 and 188).
5. Reviewer’s comment: “A data Analysis procedure was adopted but should authenticate the use by providing some solid arguments in favour of the data analysis procedure”. Author’s replay: The data analysis procedure has been justified.
6. Reviewer’s comment: “The whole paper should be revisited by a native language and research expert”. Author’s replay: The translation of the manuscript was done by an expert translator.
7. Reviewer’s comment: “To sum up, the study addressed an important topic; however, a valid theoretical background is needed for anchoring the roots of the study in the available paradigm of knowledge”. Author’s replay: The theoretical framework has been modified to give it consistency and anchor the roots of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Comprehensive and well-organised systematic review. Method is robust and clearly stated. The discussion section is small, as are the conclusions.

There is an imbalance between the different sections of the article.

 

As a recommendation, these two sections should be expanded to allow for a deeper understanding of the objective and the researcher's vision.

Author Response

 

REVIEWER 3

1. Reviewer’s comment: “As a recommendation, these two sections should be expanded to allow for a deeper understanding of the objective and the researcher's vision”. Author’s replay: The discussion and conclusion sections have been modified and expanded.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the paper due to the comments. I hope they can proofread their paper before it is finally published.