How Can Teachers Be Encouraged to Commit to Sustainability? Evaluation of a Teacher-Training Experience in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of “How to encourage teachers committed to sustainability? Evaluation of an experience for their training in Spain”

9 July 2019

This article describes the evaluation of a short curricular intervention for pre-service teachers to develop their commitment to sustainability and their view of the subject.

Overall this was an interesting study. I have a few comments to improve the paper, but they are minor.

 Since the subjects are teacher trainees, I had initially expected the study to mention something about evaluating the trainees’ likelihood of teaching sustainability and CC in their classrooms. This was not the focus of the paper, so it would be helpful to mention early on that the teacher trainees are not studying for the area of environmental education and the study is not looking at their likelihood of teaching the topic.

Line 58, reference 7 is not clear. Whose goals are being referenced?

When describing the intervention, one thing I wanted to know is whether the intervention was designed for teacher trainees, secondary students, both, or neither. Who is the intended audience for this curriculum?

Around line 158, if the interview questions are short, they should be included in the paper as an Appendix or even as a table/figure.

I appreciated that the references were international, and not just focused on Spain. Good job here.

Line 217: the two who walk/bike are men. Is walking/biking a safety factor for the women? There may be a gender difference here. The authors might want to note this.

Reference 51 is the same as 14

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your study was very interesting and timely. Your introduction highlighted an appropriate need for the study. 

Your lit review was not comprehensive, but did provide enough background. 

I would suggest some additional information in your methodology so that we (the consumers of your research) have a better understanding of what you did. Especially the steps you took to ensure trustworthiness and rigor (see Lincoln and Guba).

Your results were clear, but could be enhanced with a few quotes from your participants so their voices come through.

Your conclusions and recommendations were appropriate for the data presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors start by contextualizing in the Introduction the pertinence of the study, which is understandable and supported by literature. Some aspects need to be further clarified, like:

-       line 36, which international agencies are being considered?

-       lines 66-68, which key issues are comprised in this affirmation?

-       lines 75-76, what do the authors mean with “all other people organisations”?

-       in what way is this didactic proposal different from others? Which key issues are approach?

In section 1.1 it would be more coherent if the authors used always the same designation. In line 99 the didactic proposal is referred to as research proposal. Also in this section the authors list a series of guidelines to develop the didactic proposal mentioning the suggestions of authorities in the field? Which authorities are these and who made them authorities? Recognized by whom?

The articulation between these suggestions and the phases of the role-play should be further explained.

In section 2. the authors should clearly characterize the participants (e.g. which levels of teaching are they being prepared for; when n the course did they have this subject? Did they have previous experiences with CC in the curriculum; how did the researchers form the six cooperative teams)

Some methodological options should be further explained (e.g. line 156 what was involved in the qualitative exposition; how did the researchers collect the data related with the role-play; the cases in the case study are not identified and characterized)

The results are exclusively related to data from the interviews. There is no mention to the implementation of the role-play.

The conclusions should be deepened and more grounded on the by literature and the authors must clearly state in what sense this didactic proposal had an impact different from others.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments.