Teaching the Effectiveness of Integrated Studies and Social Engagement: A Case Study on SDG Education in Depopulated Areas in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper entitled “Teaching Effectiveness of Integrated Studies and Social Engagement: A Case study on SDGs Education in the depopulated area in Japan” is an interesting paper as it portrays a case study from a Japanese high school referring to the modern Sustainable Development Goals of the Agenda 2030. 

Nevertheless, there are several issues throughout the text that need to be further explained or modified/corrected for the paper to be properly prepared for publication. The author(s) are strongly urged to consider all the following general and specific issues:

·       The text should go through extensive language editing since too many words and thematic repetitions are met, even in the same sentences/paragraphs; also large sentences are seen making comprehension even more difficult, while several points are written in a non-scientific way. 

·       The 1.2. Literature Review sub-section, almost occupying two and a half pages with only a few references is too long with extensive analysis of limited significance. Instead, the author(s) should shorten a lot this section retaining only the important info.

·       The same pertains to sub-section 1.3 Current situation analysis on Sustainability. In this section, another problematic issue arises, which is an epistemological one. How can we measure and analyze Sustainability? So, to eliminate such epistemological questions, I would suggest omitting the sub-title and proceeding with only the basic info regarding the population demographics of the country in one paragraph. Focus mainly on the illuminating Figure.

·       The author(s) are strongly urged to analyze in detail what they mean when referring to SDGs education, initially in general and afterwards in particular in the Tohoku region. There is no such analysis based on literature regarding the former.

·       In line with the above, in the Materials and Methods section, there is no info about the high school system (i.e., number of grades, student age, types of high schools, apart from public and private), so the relevant info can be comprehended by the reader.

·       The same applies to the examined framework. There are several references even from the sub-section before Methodology about the research activities, collaborative activities, exchange of opinions with leader teachers, annual guidance plan, experiments in the lab, and festivals, but with no cohesion and systematic manner, making the comprehension of the research framework extremely weak. 

·       Furthermore, the superficial description of the questionnaire (and the interview) is not sufficient either. This point becomes even more important since the research pertains to the SDGs in general and not to specific ones. In terms of this point, another question comes into the reader’s mind. Since too much discussion is found regarding the aging population and depopulation societies of certain areas, shouldn’t the authors focus on specific SDGs describing these issues? An answer to that question seems imperative. 

·       In line with the above, another question that is raised from the Methodology and the Results sections is this: were the authors referring in their research questions to all 17 SDGs simultaneously? Didn’t they want to examine for possible discrimination among them and how both teachers and students receive them? Since we talk about 17 completely different fields, someone would expect differences which would be of great scientific interest. The way this study was treated, the authors actually homogenized the respondents’ views and beliefs about completely different things. An answer to that question should be provided by the authors too.

·       Someone has to go down to the Results section to find the size of the sample (for both teachers and students), while this should be presented in Methodology. On the contrary, only the sample of the interviewed teachers is recorded (two teachers) for collecting some qualitative data but the size of this sample is too small and therefore the author(s) should reconsider using it. 

·       Since there is no reference to the null hypothesis in the Methodology section, this info should not appear in Results. Repetitions appearing in the significance levels should also be avoided.

·       In the Discussion section, the reader expects the authors to interpret their results based on the existing literature, especially when the authors are referring to “previous studies”. No such reference appears here.

·       Finally, in the conclusion section, the reported information in the first three paragraphs is presented as results and not as conclusions. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer

                   We would like to express our appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments. Your comments are highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments from you.

General concept Comments

The submitted paper entitled “Teaching Effectiveness of Integrated Studies and Social Engagement: A Case study on SDGs Education in the depopulated area in Japan” is an interesting paper as it portrays a case study from a Japanese high school referring to the modern Sustainable Development Goals of the Agenda 2030.

Nevertheless, there are several issues throughout the text that need to be further explained or modified/corrected for the paper to be properly prepared for publication. The author(s) are strongly urged to consider all the following general and specific issues:

Thank you very much for your very meaningful feedback. Below you will find information on how we have revised the manuscript in response to your individual comments. Thank you for your confirmation.

Specific comments

1.The text should go through extensive language editing since too many words and thematic repetitions are met, even in the same sentences/paragraphs; also large sentences are seen making comprehension even more difficult, while several points are written in a non-scientific way.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. Your point is exactly correct, I agree with you. Since I am not a native English speaker, some of the English expressions in my manuscript were duplicated, unnatural, and lacked academic expression. Therefore, using MDPI's English Editing Service, my manuscript was proofread by the editors and corrected to appropriate English expressions.

2.The 1.2. Literature Review sub-section, almost occupying two and a half pages with only a few references is too long with extensive analysis of limited significance. Instead, the author(s) should shorten a lot this section retaining only the important info.

Thank you very much for your meaningful feedback. As you pointed out, I thought that to make this section more concise, it is necessary to change the wording of the text and select information. I've fixed roundabout phrasing to be more concise and removed superfluous information. Some information has been moved to the next section instead of the literature review section. (line 82, line 89, line 132~line 134,line 171~line 174)

3.The same pertains to sub-section 1.3 Current situation analysis on Sustainability. In this section, another problematic issue arises, which is an epistemological one. How can we measure and analyze Sustainability? So, to eliminate such epistemological questions, I would suggest omitting the sub-title and proceeding with only the basic info regarding the population demographics of the country in one paragraph. Focus mainly on the illuminating Figure.

Thank you for pointing out a very important point of focus. As you say, sustainability has a broad meaning, so its measurement and analysis require more detailed follow-up information and precise analysis. However, since this research focuses specifically on local sustainability in a declining population, I have removed the subtitle as per your advice and put together a more specific focus paragraph. The title has been changed to "Sustainability of regions as seen from regional characteristics based on net population growth rate in Japan" to make the content easier to understand. Thank you for not only your comments but also your suggestions for improvement. (line 197~line 204)

4.The author(s) are strongly urged to analyze in detail what they mean when referring to SDGs education, initially in general and afterwards in particular in the Tohoku region. There is no such analysis based on literature regarding the former.

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. As you point out, the literature-based analysis of the implications of SDG education in the Tohoku region is difficult. Therefore, the Tohoku region is a region that deserves attention in that it has problems with regional sustainability, and that the Japanese government has also indicated the importance of regional revitalization. I added the content that the sustainability of the region is maintained by doing so and suggested the role of SDG education in the Tohoku region. (line 273~line 277)

5.In line with the above, in the Materials and Methods section, there is no info about the high school system (i.e., number of grades, student age, types of high schools, apart from public and private), so the relevant info can be comprehended by the reader.

Thank you very much for such a meaningful comment. Based on your comment, I added the following contents from line 315 to line 320. Miyagi Prefectural Shiroishi High School is a three-year full-time public high school, and a total of 515 first- and second-year students participated in SDGs research activities, of which 269 were first-year students and 246 were second-year students. The first-year students were 15 to 16 years old, and the second-year students were 16 to 17 years old. There were 34 teachers who were involved in SDGs research activities, and these teachers were also surveyed. I reconfirmed that such basic information should be clearly stated. Thank you very much for pointing it out. (line 315~line 320)

6.The same applies to the examined framework. There are several references even from the sub-section before Methodology about the research activities, collaborative activities, exchange of opinions with leader teachers, annual guidance plan, experiments in the lab, and festivals, but with no cohesion and systematic manner, making the comprehension of the research framework extremely weak.

Thank you for your very important comments. I agree with your opinion. In my manuscript, I did not write in detail about the timing and content of SDG research activities, so I think it was difficult for readers to deepen their understanding of the methods and results. Therefore, I added the flow of SDG inquiry activities from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. (line 324~line 335)

7.Furthermore, the superficial description of the questionnaire (and the interview) is not sufficient either. This point becomes even more important since the research pertains to the SDGs in general and not to specific ones. In terms of this point, another question comes into the reader’s mind. Since too much discussion is found regarding the aging population and depopulation societies of certain areas, shouldn’t the authors focus on specific SDGs describing these issues? An answer to that question seems imperative.

Thank you very much for your very important point. I think your point is exactly the point of view that both the author and the reader need. Therefore, I added the reason why this research focuses on SDGs in general rather than specific SDGs related to rural depopulation and aging. Students are divided into groups according to the subjects they are interested in, so not all groups are engaged in research activities related to depopulation and aging in rural areas. On the other hand, I also added that 82.14% of all the groups set Shiroishi City as the target area for the survey. More than 80% of the groups selected Shiroishi City, which is located in the Tohoku region, which is suffering from declining population due to declining birthrate and aging population, as the target area for the survey. That is why the SDGs in general are focused on in the context of regional revitalization. (line 335~line 342)

8.In line with the above, another question that is raised from the Methodology and the Results sections is this: were the authors referring in their research questions to all 17 SDGs simultaneously? Didn’t they want to examine for possible discrimination among them and how both teachers and students receive them? Since we talk about 17 completely different fields, someone would expect differences which would be of great scientific interest. The way this study was treated, the authors actually homogenized the respondents’ views and beliefs about completely different things. An answer to that question should be provided by the authors too.

Thank you very much for your very insightful question. It should have been mentioned, but I overlooked it. Thank you very much for making me aware of this. In this research, it is clear how much the 17 items of the SDGs in general have been adopted by the 56 groups (multiple SDG items) as the main theme of their research activities, so we have added the details. As a result, among SDG items No.1 to No.17, The most adopted SDGs items were No. 3 “GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING” and No. 11 “SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNI-TIES” each of which was adopted by ten groups. In response to this result, he added that it was suggested that there were many students who were interested in health and livable areas. (line 350~line 353, line 413~line 421)

However, since teachers' interests in SDGs were not investigated in this research, it is necessary to add this as a limitation of the research. (line 618~line 624)

9.Someone has to go down to the Results section to find the size of the sample (for both teachers and students), while this should be presented in Methodology. On the contrary, only the sample of the interviewed teachers is recorded (two teachers) for collecting some qualitative data but the size of this sample is too small and therefore the author(s) should reconsider using it.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. This comment of yours is a very valuable opinion. The basic information about the research subject should have been specified in the research methods section. Therefore, from line 315 to line 320, I indicated that it was a three-year full-time high school as the basic information of Miyagi Prefectural Shiroishi High School, which is the target school of the research. In addition, the number and age of the students and the number of teachers who participated in the survey were specified as the basic information of the survey subjects.

It was also pointed out that the sample size was too small because only two teachers were interviewed. This is a very important comment as well. Thank you for pointing this out. These two teachers are the leaders who planned and managed the SDGs research activities at Miyagi Prefectural Shiroishi High School. Certainly, the content of these two interviews does not affect most of the research results. However, in consideration of the fact that first-year students were more interested in social issues than second-year students before engaging in SDGs research activities, interviews with these two teachers are presented as follow-up information. Therefore, I clearly stated from line 394 to line 398 that the content of the interviews with these two teachers will be used as additional information for considering the results of the questionnaire. (line 315~line 320, line 394~line 398)

10.Since there is no reference to the null hypothesis in the Methodology section, this info should not appear in Results. Repetitions appearing in the significance levels should also be avoided.

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I should have specified the test method and the criteria for rejecting the null hypothesis regarding data analysis. Therefore, in the method section, from line 386 to line 393, I have added the hypotheses set in this study and the criteria for rejecting the null hypothesis. We also specified the significance level in the study methods section and removed "which is less than that when considering the significance level of 0.05.", a recurring phrase in the results section. This also allowed us to avoid repeated expressions about the significance level. (line 386~line 393, line 456~line 459, line 463~line 466)

11.In the Discussion section, the reader expects the authors to interpret their results based on the existing literature, especially when the authors are referring to “previous studies”. No such reference appears here.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I think that your point is very correct. In the discussion section, I wrote only what I learned from the previous research review, and I failed to write about how it was interpreted in the context of this research. Therefore, considering that more than 80% of the students chose Shiroishi City as the survey target area, and SDG education topics are related to the issues faced by the country and region, I added that the problems faced by the region may affect the interests of the younger generation living there. (line 529~line 539)

12.Finally, in the conclusion section, the reported information in the first three paragraphs is presented as results and not as conclusions.

Thank you very much for your important feedback. Indeed, three paragraphs in the conclusion section had duplicate representations shown in the results. So, I've revised the first three paragraphs significantly and summarized what the results have revealed. In the conclusion, I briefly summarized the numerical results of the survey and the contents of the results, without describing the detailed figures shown in the results section. From your comments, I learned about better writing expressions and sentence structure. Thank you so much. (line 582~line 594)

We’d like to thank you again for your valuable comments, your comments and suggestions have improved our paper!

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written technical paper that if read by people in that field will be fine, but if read by others, it may be just too technical. So, really depends on who the audience is. You may need to speak more to a general audience, which may require some wording edits.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer

                   We would like to express our appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments. Your comments are highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments from you.

Comments and Responce

This is a well-written technical paper that if read by people in that field will be fine, but if read by others, it may be just too technical. So, really depends on who the audience is. You may need to speak more to a general audience, which may require some wording edits.

Thank you for pointing this out. I think your point is the most important one. I added some content to make it easier for readers to understand, and for people with a wide range of expertise to understand the content. First, from line 315 to line 320, I added some basic information about the schools surveyed for this research. Then, from line 324 to line 335, I added an outline of the annual schedule of how the SDG research activities were carried out throughout the year. In addition, from line 335 to line 342, I added which area the students at Miyagi Prefectural Shiroishi High School chose as the research target area when conducting their research activities. We believe that adding follow-up information on the SDG education cases in this research will help readers understand better.

In addition, my manuscript was reviewed, revised and edited by MDPI's English editing service. I'm not a native English speaker, so the manuscript contained redundant expressions and unnatural expressions. Corrected by the English editing service, the writing is more concise, clear and academic.

Your feedback made me realize once again the importance of having a wide range of people understand the content of my research. Thank you again for your meaningful comments.

We’d like to thank you again for your valuable comments, your comments and suggestions have improved our paper!

Yours sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, great progress has been achieved in this revision in terms of all comments that were pointed out regarding content clarity, and epistemological and linguistic issues, and therefore, can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1 (Round 2)

Dear Reviewer

                   We would like to express our appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments. Your comments are highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Comments and Responce

In my opinion, great progress has been achieved in this revision in terms of all comments that were pointed out regarding content clarity, and epistemological and linguistic issues, and therefore, can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Thank you for confirming the contents of the modified version of the manuscript. And thank you for acknowledging the publishing of the manuscript. Your precious and meaningful feedback greatly improved my manuscript level. I would like to make use of the lots of learning from you in my future research.

We’d like to thank you again for your valuable comments, your comments and suggestions have improved our paper!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf