Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please take the two stories out from the main text and put them in Appendix to article.

Please enlarge your conclussion.

The Refernces must be in APA style. Please correct the titles.

 

Please check for small errors and typos.

Author Response

Thanks for your helpful suggestions.

• The two stories are now presented as an Appendix.
• The Conclusion is now longer and makes better justice to the main text.
• All references have been corrected to comply with the MDPI reference style.

Reviewer 2 Report

- The "Conceptual framework" section requires more references about the link between storytelling, values' education and sustainability. On the other hand, some amendments should be introduced regarding some topics (for instance, saying that scaffolding was first introduce by Bruner in 1976 without mentioning the works and developments by Vygotsky).

- The "Methods" section does not include a detailed explanaition about the literature review's systematic process of analysis: which sources of information were consulted (WoS, Scopus, ERIC, etc.)? which criteria and categories were used to accept/reject on document? which concrete system of analysis was implemented?

- The "3C" sections are full of statements without references. Since it is a document analysis' research, all the statements should be followed by the reference they come from.

- Concerning the storytelling process by teachers, a flow diagram with all the steps and phases would be very convenient to facilitate the understanding of the practical guidelines for the staff.

- The "Conclusions" section is too generic, and it does not include information about the diversity of impacts of this curricular development on gender issues, social class, geographical and cultural background and others.

Author Response

Thanks for your constructive feedback and suggestions.

• The Conceptual framework section has been expanded with several new references added, including to the work of Vygotsky (which is also referred to in the Conclusion).
• The Methods section now explains better the methodology, including databases used and the nature of the review.
• The 3C sections now include references as follows: Context has 5 references; Content – 8 references; Concept – 9 references; Scaffolding – 4 references. It is difficult to add more references as these sections also present original discussion of the two stories.
• A new flow diagram (Figure 3) is now included; thanks for the suggestion.
• The Conclusion has been extended to include sections related to the two particular stories and the scaffolding approach.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very well presented, although it is not a regular article, it does make good contributions and I think it can be very useful and have a lot of transference.

Author Response

Thanks for your positive feedback. It is really appreciated.