Sustainability Teaching Tools in the Digital Age

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is rather confusing and difficult to understand. It needs a revision in terms of English - the way it is many ideas are difficult to understand.

Some specific questions/comments:

Review what is introduction and the rest of the paper (1.1 and 1.2 should be the literature review, not the introduction)

Figures start in 2 (where is number 1?)

Figure 2 should not be in the end of the chapter bur where it is mentioned for the first time (line 191), source?

Chapter 2 – what is the purpose of this paragraph? Maybe it could come with chapter 3. (methodology)

Research design – it needs clarification, is it content analyses? If so, why? Semiotic?

What was exactly the material analysed? Videos of classes? How many? Levels of education (you refer Early Childhood and Primary Education but before you refer to PISA)? Who makes these videos? Teachers?

3.2 – Literature review? You explain dimensions….

4. Results

Figure 3 summarises what? We don’t know the materials that were analysed … video content? Of how many classes?

Table 3 has a source? What is it used for? It relates to your research? How?

4.4 – These topics should have been presented in the literature review….here you should be presenting results of your research.

5 – Discussion and conclusions

here you introduce new information that should have been presented before..(SUSTAIN project (https://www.fondation-lamap.org/en/sustain), or National 358 Geographic Education (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/education/)

Have you managed to learn something about the acquisition of competencies?

The title of the paper is: Teaching for sustainability in the Digital Age

what have you learned about this? it is not clear

I advise I good revision of the language, the organization of information within the paper and the formatting.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1, thanks for your insightful comments. They have been very useful to identify the points of the manuscript that were more difficult to understand. We’ve made our best to try to incorporate all your suggestions, and we feel this has improved substantially the quality of your work. I hope we’ve answered all your concerns. Please see the attached document for the detailed account of the changes we have made, following your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject studied is very relevant for the initial training of teachers as well as the conceptual structure of the curricula. To enhance the quality of the text, I suggest the following corrections

• I recommend reworking the discussion and the conclusion to be more in line with the results of this research. For this, it would be appropriate to subdivide paragraph 5 into three parts: Discussion, Conclusions, and The limit of the result.
• A parallel should be drawn between the objectives indicated in the quotation from Bokova (paragraph 5) and the results of this research. Otherwise, I suggest that we move this quotation in the introduction by giving more details.
• To correct: Reference [25] is not indicated after reference [24] : see page 3.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2, thanks for your constructive criticism. It has helped us enhance the discussion, by removing some references that deviated the attention from the main theme, and improve its structure.  See the attached document a more detailed account of the changes we have made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The masnuscript has gone a considerable improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comment; we are glad to see that you consider the quality of our manuscript has been improved.

We have made further editions in the English language and style.