Educating Teachers for Sustainability and Social Justice: A Service-Learning Project in Physical Education Initial Teacher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI wish to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Educating Teachers for Sustainability and Social Justice: A Project in Physical Education Initial Teacher Education." I recognize the effort and dedication involved in creating this work and acknowledge the importance of developing research in the field of Physical Education (PE) related to sustainability and social justice.
However, after a detailed assessment, I have identified several aspects of the manuscript that, in my view, require attention and further elaboration.
Link between Physical Education and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
The manuscript could significantly benefit from a more thorough exploration of the links between PE and the SDGs. I suggest reviewing and referencing more published works in specialized journals such as Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Sport Education and Society, IJERPH, among others. In terms of bibliographic support, the work seems, to my understanding, insufficient and requires a more solid and extensive foundation.
Interpretation of Results:
The presented results need a more detailed interpretation. It would be helpful to additionally present the dimensions and sub-themes found and to delve into a table showing the frequencies of the codes identified in the narratives. This additional level of detail would provide clarity and understanding to the reader regarding the study’s findings.
Clarification of Method:
The method section requires clarification and further depth. It is unclear to me what kind of study we are facing. Is it a qualitative study, or is it the presentation of a project? I find that the manuscript is in limbo between both. If it is indeed a qualitative study, it is imperative to describe the method performed in greater detail, providing a full and transparent understanding of the research approach adopted.
Depth in Discussion:
The discussion section is, in my judgment, insufficient. There are numerous links between Service-Learning (SL) and PE, as well as between the SDGs and PE, and these require a more in-depth exploration and more detailed reflection.
In conclusion, I value the focus and intent of the presented study, but I believe the manuscript requires substantial revision to address the identified shortcomings in key areas. These improvements will not only enrich the content of the manuscript but also will strengthen its contribution to the field of Physical Education and sustainability.
I look forward to a revised version of the manuscript and am willing to provide additional comments if required.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review the article "Educating Teachers for Sustainability and Social Justice: A Project in Physical Education Initial Teacher Education". This paper focuses on a service-learning project applied in a masters degree in the field of physical education teacher education. The SOP project involved a vast number of agents and up to 22 different service-learning initiatives, thus, it entailed lots of time and effort. Therefore, I would like to congratulate the authors for engaging in such an enterprise. Service-learning is a complex undertaking by itself, and I can assume that the huge dimensions of the SOP made it even harder.
From a general perspective, the text presents the necessary sections, and its structure is more or less coherent. As I mentioned, the described project seemed to be complex and huge. However, there are some aspects related to the development of the project that could be a bit clearer. Adding some information in this respect could be instrumental for readers to be able to appreciate the magnitude and details of the project and try to replicate it or take some ideas for their own projects. Furthermore, in my opinion, the discussion section should increase its relevance in this text. As I see it, the work carried out by the authors can be highlighted in this section so that all their effort gains the relevance it deserves. In order to help the authors with these concerns (and other minor issues), below I share several suggestions, ideas and comments in the hope they are helpful for the authors. In addition, although I am not an English native speaker, I would suggest the authors to proofread the whole text since I found several mistakes throughout it and some sentences sound a bit weird.
Title and abstract
Since the SOP project is focused on applying service-learning, I would suggest the authors to include such a term in the title of the paper. This will help readers to find this article in the databases easily when looking for examples of service-learning proposals.
I would suggest the authors to present the goal of the paper in the abstract.
Line 7: There is a number “(70)” in the sentence, but I do not understand its meaning. Is this number correct there?
Introduction
The acronym of “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” appearing in the first paragraph is ASD 2030. However, later on, this term appears in different forms (i.e., ADS, DSA). Please, check the order of the letters in all the references to this term in the text. Similarly, there are some mistakes when using the acronym AL. I would suggest the authors to check this too.
Line 30: full stop before “It aims...”.
Before the subheading “Active learning methodologies” the authors present a paragraph dealing with Service-Learning. The next subheading focuses again on Service-Learning. Maybe, the authors could consider waiting until this second subheading to present Service-Learning. In this way, the text will present first Active learning methodologies and afterwards, focus on Service-Learning as an example of them.
In line 55, the authors refer to “traditional teaching model”. I wonder what they understand with this concept. Maybe, it could be interesting to present what they mean when using such a term.
Line 78-79: the authors state that “AL methodologies are aligned with one of the goals of ASD 2030, which is the effectiveness of institutions, namely educational institutions.” Maybe, it could be interesting specifying the number of such a SDG.
The first reference to “Service Learning (SL)” (line 44) is different to how authors present it later on, where they refer to “Service Learning for Society”. I wonder what the differences are between these two conceptions and why they decided to focus on “Service Learning for Society”. This information would be interesting for the reader to be able to clearly understand the authors’ conception of SL.
Lines 145-147. In this paragraph, the authors refer to a number of limitations identified for SL when it is applied in Physical Education. However, no references appear throughout these lines. I would suggest them to support the ideas presented here with studies focusing on the challenges that SL has posed to educators.
Before presenting the objective of the study, I believe that it would be interesting to deepen on SL applied in teacher education and physical education. Currently, the text presents SL from a general perspective, but there exists vast literature of this approach specifically applied in physical education teacher education. Maybe, the authors could present previous literature specific of this field so that the readers get a greater idea of what literature has to say. With a couple of paragraphs presenting a few papers or referring to some recent systematic reviews and their main outcomes, it could be fine (i.e., Case et al., 20202; Francisco-Garcés et al., 2022; Pérez-Ordás et al., 2021; Ruiz-Montero et al., 2019). All this information is relevant since it should help the authors to clearly present why their text is needed, to express what this paper adds to literature and why readers should keep on reading.
Line 153: when presenting the aim of this study, the authors state that “The goal of this study is to present a pedagogical experience built on the principles of Service Learning for Society within the theme of Olympics values”. However, I am not sure if these principles have been presented previously. This is related to my previous comment. Maybe, the authors could present the basic tenets of SL in physical education presented by a relevant source, such as Chiva-Bartoll and Fernández-Rio’s, although authors could select another reference if they find it more suitable.
Likewise, regarding the objective of the study, probably, the authors could refer to “describe and analyse” a pedagogical experience... As I see it, this might be a more accurate wording for the text they have presented.
Lines 153-162: It seems to me that here the authors are mixing the aims of the study with the aims of the pedagogical proposal (the SOP). To make reading easier to follow and understand, I would suggest the authors to refer to the aims of the study only at this point in the text. Later on, when presenting and describing the pedagogical proposal, they could refer to the specific learning objectives and service objectives of the SOP.
Materials and Methods
The context section is very insightful, it helps to better understand the SOP. My only doubt at this point is why this project is called “Sustained Olympics”, is it related to the Olympic Games in any sense?
In the participants section, the authors mention “a national museum, two associations of citizens with mental disabilities, two sports clubs, two health centres, and several learning support centres of some of the partner schools”, among others. It is clear to me what the roles of schools and high schools was (students placements took place there). However, what the role of these other entities was is not so clear. Maybe, the authors could describe what the role of each of these institutions was in a table. In this way, it will be easier for the reader to understand how all these participants were involved in the SOP.
Table 1: when the authors refer to “pupils” I assume they are talking about school/high school students. At this point I am not sure whether the service-learning projects were carried out by these kids or by the PSTs who were carrying out their placements. That is to say, it is not clear to me what the role of PSTs was. Were they acting as students and developing a SL project or were they the “teachers” who had to engage their school/high school students to participate in SL? I would suggest the authors to clarify this issue.
Line 220: the authors refer to exhibition of posters of each of the 22 projects developed. However, in table 1 it is not mentioned when these posters were created. Maybe, the authors could specify in which phase students were to prepare their posters.
Lines 222-226: this is extremely relevant. According to literature, SL is a complex endeavour, even more when engaging such a big number of partner associations as in the case of the SOP. This paragraph is highly relevant.
Table 1 presents the phases of the project focusing on the tasks that students were to carry out. Later on, the authors present project stages focusing on the general management of the SOP. Maybe, to make it clearer how these two timelines co-concurred, the authors could integrate in the same table these two branches of the project (general management and pedagogical proposal) to depict how these were developed along the course.
Line 255: the authors state that “the project development task focused on the following six, out of 10 parameters” and they present these 6 items. However, I wonder what the other 4 parameters were. In addition, it would be interesting to know how these 10 parameters were assessed.
Data analysis
I would suggest the authors to include “data analysis” as a subheading within “Materials and Methods” section instead of presenting it as an isolated heading.
As Deeley (2022) asserts, reflective diaries are a basic tool to enhance learning through Service-Learning. In the case of SOP, it seems that they were a relevant part to systematize learning on the part of PST. Since data analysis of this paper was focused on the PSTs’ reflective reports, I would suggest the authors to provide a clear description of these reports. I wonder what their structure was, how many pages they had, what the instructions PST received were, etc. Were they individual o group reports? How many reports were analyzed? What type of questions/prompts were students to reflect upon?
In addition, the authors expressed that they used thematic analysis, but no further explanation is provided. As I see it, it would be very insightful to know how they performed such an analysis. Furthermore, they mention that 7 themes were identified and later on, they add a new theme focused on learning. I wonder why this theme is not presented with the previous ones. Is “Learning” different from the rest? Why and in which sense?
Results
“The learning experiences” appears as a different section. However, according to the ideas mentioned in the data analysis section, it seems part of the results of the study. Accordingly, I would suggest the authors to include this section as an additional subheading within the results if there is not any reason leading them to consider it as a different part which is not linked to the results.
Discussion
It seems a bit odd to me that some paragraphs within this section do not discuss with any reference. I would suggest the authors to try to clearly discuss with previous literature to show how their research resonates (or not) with previous studies.
In addition, I would suggest the authors to clearly identify what their study adds to previous literature. This should be the point when the authors visualize their contribution to the field and give relevance to all the work they have carried out.
The last paragraph of the discussion is really powerful. Maybe, the authors could expand it and express how the SOP and this study may be instrumental to gain awareness on this issue and claim the need to support projects as the SOP too.
A limitations section of the study (not the project itself, which appears in the conclusion section) and future implications paragraph would be welcome at the end of the discussion section.
Conclusion
The authors mention several difficulties that were faced when carrying out the SOP. These are interesting and needed ideas that help readers understand the complexity of SL. However, it is not clear to me why these difficulties can be presented as a conclusion of this study. These difficulties are not mentioned in the results section and the conclusions are expected to present the main ideas derived from the results and their discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAlthough I am not an English native speaker, I would suggest the authors to proofread the whole text since I found several mistakes throughout it and some sentences sound a bit weird.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction sets a solid foundation by explaining the significance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its importance for various sectors, including higher education. The introduction clearly states the main aims of the study, guiding the reader about what to expect in the subsequent sections. The SOP's design and the SL for Society methodology structure are well-elaborated, with a clear breakdown in Table 1. This gives readers a straightforward understanding of the entire project process. There is a clear presentation of a thematic analysis of projects developed by school placement cohorts.The document effectively captures the reflection of PSTs, providing not just an account of what was done but also of the learnings and transformations experienced. The discussion section adeptly connects the study's findings with broader themes in teacher education.In summary, the conclusions section provides a comprehensive wrap-up of the study's key findings and offers valuable insights for broader educational contexts.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations, it's a great job.
I will accept the manuscript in its current state.
