Professionalization of Academic Teaching in Latin American Universities to Address SDGs Applying the Stages of Concern Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Makrakis et al. submitted a manuscript entitled "Professionalization of Academic Teaching in Latin American Universities to Address SDGs Applying the Stages of Concern Theory". I greatly appreciate the time and effort you put into this work, and your contribution to the field of sustainability in higher education. However, I don't think this manuscript is suitable for publication in "Sustainability".

1. Lack of scope fit: While research on Latin American universities is meaningful, it may be of insufficient relevance to the journal's broader readership.
2. Methodological limitations: Reliance on self-reported survey data and a lack of qualitative depth limit the generalizability of findings.
3. Lack of innovation: Although the application of the Theory of Phases of Concern (CBAM) is reasonable, there is a lot of overlap with existing studies in similar contexts, resulting in limited incremental contributions. The CBAM model is simply applied to the research, and there is a lack of theoretical innovation.
4. Other problems, such as the lack of critical analysis of the existing literature, failed to clarify the breakthrough points of this study compared with the existing results. The logical correlation between the theoretical framework and the empirical findings is weak. There was a bias in sample selection: the distribution and representativeness of the nine universities were not adequately illustrated. Relying only on questionnaires, there is a lack of qualitative data to support it, and the depth of research is insufficient. The potential impact of Latin American special education backgrounds on the findings was not adequately discussed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. 

Comment 1- Lack of scope fit: While research on Latin American universities is meaningful, it may be of insufficient relevance to the journal's broader readership.   

Response: `1 

 This particular study, which is based on a huge sample, although purposive, was proved very instrumental for implementing a capacity-building program in line with the recommendation summarized in Table 5. Despite it, this study is the first to attempt to contextualize the SoC instrument to SDGs. This will raise interest globally and not regionally!

Comment 2: Methodological limitations: Reliance on self-reported survey data and a lack of qualitative depth limit the generalizability of findings.

Response 2- Generalizability depends on the sampling methods, not on self-reported data.  Although the comment on qualitative depth is out of the context of this study, qualitative research is not primarily designed for generalizability in the statistical sense.  Claiming generalizations from qualitative research usually refers to theoretical and transferability purposes. 

Comment 3: Lack of innovation: Although the application of the Theory of Phases of Concern (CBAM) is reasonable, there is a lot of overlap with existing studies in similar contexts, resulting in limited incremental contributions. The CBAM model is simply applied to the research, and there is a lack of theoretical innovation.

Response 3: 

Contrary to what you say, overlapping findings in the literature review can validate prior research and reinforce the reliability of established conclusions. This can be important in building a strong evidence base for theories and practices. In general, research that overlaps previous studies can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon across different contexts.

Comment 4: Other problems, such as the lack of critical analysis of the existing literature, failed to clarify the breakthrough points of this study compared with the existing results. The logical correlation between the theoretical framework and the empirical findings is weak. There was a bias in sample selection: the distribution and representativeness of the nine universities were not adequately illustrated. Relying only on questionnaires, there is a lack of qualitative data to support it, and the depth of research is insufficient. The potential impact of Latin American special education backgrounds on the findings was not adequately discussed.

Response 4: 

The study's nature does not require a critical analysis of the cited literature except for identifying gaps and substantiating research results. It is based on purposive data collection in nine universities as part of a funded research project. So, it's meant for specific purposes.  Although qualitative data always helps to illuminate quantitative findings, it was not planned in this study.  However, qualitative data is intended to be collected among the respondents in the sample since a significant number of them are part of the capacity-building program.  In a sense, a longitudinal study will follow up. In any case, some relevant points are mentioned in the shortcomings! The comment about special education is out of context!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic—the professionalization of academic teaching in Latin American universities in relation to the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is conceptually grounded in established frameworks such as the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and the Stages of Concern Theory, and benefits from a large and diverse empirical sample across multiple countries. However, the manuscript requires substantial improvements to enhance its clarity, methodological rigor, and overall scholarly contribution. The formulation of explicit and testable hypotheses aligned with the research questions would provide a clearer analytical structure and improve the interpretive coherence of the results. The adaptation of the SoCQ instrument to the SDG context needs to be described in greater detail, including linguistic, cultural, and contextual validation procedures to ensure methodological robustness. The purposive sampling strategy must be more thoroughly justified, with clear inclusion criteria and consideration of representativeness and potential bias. Although the statistical analyses are generally appropriate, the manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of effect sizes, confidence intervals, and a more detailed explanation of the rationale for using Welch ANOVA. Interpretations of non-significant findings should be handled with greater caution to avoid speculative conclusions. Furthermore, the literature review, while comprehensive, would be strengthened by deeper engagement with recent empirical studies from Latin America to better contextualize the contribution. The writing is generally clear, but the manuscript would benefit from stylistic refinement to enhance conciseness and eliminate redundancy. With these revisions, the study could represent a meaningful contribution to the field of sustainability-oriented educational development in higher education institutions across Latin America.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and understandable. Some stylistic editing is needed for conciseness and to eliminate redundancy, but the level is acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your encouraging words and fruitful suggestions, which added value to the updated manuscript.

Comment 1: The manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic......  The formulation of explicit and testable hypotheses aligned with the research questions would provide a clearer analytical structure and improve the interpretive coherence of the results.

Response 1:  It is done, marked in red lines 155-161

Comment 2: The adaptation of the SoCQ instrument to the SDG context needs to be described in greater detail, including linguistic, cultural, and contextual validation procedures to ensure methodological robustness.

Response 2:  It is done, marked in red lines 205-215.

Comment 3: The purposive sampling strategy must be more thoroughly justified, with clear inclusion criteria and consideration of representativeness and potential bias..

Comment 3: It is done, marked in red lines 166-173.

Comment 4: The inclusion of effect sizes..

Response 4: This was a very good suggestion that helped to illuminate differences more effectively. Cohen's D analysis was performed. See Table 2 and Table 4, which report the effect sizes with the results and interpretations included in the respective sections marked in red.   

Comment 5:  .... the rationale for using Welch ANOVA. Interpretations of non-significant findings should be handled with greater caution to avoid speculative conclusions.

Response 5: Although the justification of the Welch test was present, additional text with references was added.. See lines 235-249 in red color. 

Comment 6: Interpretations of non-significant findings should be handled with greater caution to avoid speculative conclusions

Response 6: Very good point, which was taken into consideration in the text lines 252-255 as well as in the discussion and recommendations (Table 5).

Comment 7: Furthermore, the literature review, while comprehensive, would be strengthened by deeper engagement with recent empirical studies from Latin America to better contextualize the contribution.

Response 7: Additional supporting references from the Latin American region were added, especially to substantiate the interpretation marked in red in the reference section. 

THANKS A LOT AGAIN!!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It has been a pleasure to review this paper and participate in its review and publication process! Both the use of the SDGs and the proximity to the Latin American region greatly motivate me to delve deeper into what can make this land a better place to live.

First of all, congratulations on the Abstract, which makes the objective and scope of the study perfectly clear. Clear and concise, nothing more could be asked for. It contains enough information to interest the reader or researcher. Congratulations!

Secondly, thinking about the Introduction, I must say that it effectively includes the objective and scope of the study, making it very clear what the purpose of this study was. The bibliographic references included are valuable in themselves, up-to-date, and fully relevant to the content presented. There is a considerable amount of literature regarding the use of the UN SDGs in improving the habitability of the planet that is intended to be sustainable. I would recommend adding a study on the use of university academic training in this area (DOI: 10.3390/su15065324). This publication refers specifically to how to encourage university students' awareness of the impact of SDG awareness on their academic training for their future professional development. I also missed more specific references on the status of the SDGs in the specific Latin American region (I recommend DOI: 10.3390/su15129833) and on how the degree of social development and digital adoption affects Latin America's potential as a sustainable power. I also recommend including a final sentence explaining the structure of the study below.

The way the authors have presented the Methodology section is very interesting. I particularly liked the section on "The Research Instrument," to which I would add some relevant bibliographic references (I don't dare recommend any in this case because I'm not an expert in the field). I also recommend including a diagram/graphic illustrating the process.

Regarding the Results section, the tables are valuable, but the presentation of the process is somewhat cumbersome. I recommend some graphic format to aid understanding. I especially recommend including a flowchart with the stages on page 9, and a clearer explanation of the rationale for each stage.

The Discussion is very good, however, once again we find ourselves with a long text that would be easier to interpret with the help of some graphic content. The section "The reasons why teaching staff..." on page 14 is not entirely clear to me; perhaps the authors could revise it.

Little more to say about the conclusions; I find them appropriate, correct, valuable, and well-supported by the results and discussion.

Something irrelevant, but it's worth noting that the Acknowledgements section contains red text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your encouraging comments and fruitful suggestions, which contributed to the quality of the article.

Comment 1: I would recommend adding a study on the use of university academic training in this area (DOI: 10.3390/su15065324). ....... I also missed more specific references on the status of the SDGs in the specific Latin American region (I recommend DOI: 10.3390/su15129833)

Response 1: Both of the suggested references were added along with more, which can be tracked in the reference section marked in red color.

Comment 2:  I also recommend including a diagram/graphic illustration 

Response 2: After restructuring certain parts by adding effect sizes, although I tried to include a diagram, it did not work well with the text corpus. It seems that the explanation initially provided in lines 118-133 seems sufficient.

Comment 3: Regarding the Results section, the tables are valuable, but the presentation of the process is somewat cumbersome. I recommend some graphic format to aid understanding. I especially recommend including a flowchart with the stages on page 9, and a clearer explanation of the rationale for each stage.

Comment 3: See response 2 

Comment 4: The Discussion is very good, however, once again we find ourselves with a long text that would be easier to interpret with the help of some graphic content. 

Response 4: This was an excellent point that led to the development of Table 5 in the discussion section. 

Thanks a lot again!!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the concerns of academics at nine Latin American universities regarding the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into teaching, learning, and curricula, using the Stages of Concern Theory (SoC) and the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). Its main contribution is the identification of how years of teaching experience and disciplinary background influence academics' concerns about the SDGs. Key findings show that academic staff with fewer years of service score higher in several stages of concern (Informational, Personal, Consequence, Collaboration, Refocusing) compared to more experienced colleagues. Furthermore, staff in Health Sciences show significantly higher concerns across nearly all stages than those from other disciplines. The study highlights the need for tailored professional development initiatives and supportive policies to address these concerns and effectively promote the integration of SDGs into higher education.

General Comments

First and foremost, I must thank the authors for this enlightening paper. Not only is there a remarkable empirical foundation, providing quantitative strength, but more importantly, the research problem is addressed clearly, following what are likely the two most important paths to understanding the dynamic nature of how the SDGs are—slowly and dialectically—becoming an educational paradigm. The two aspects of professional background and teaching experience are explicitly identified as foundational factors of both resistance to and acceptance of this new global educational paradigm.

Specific Comments

The article addresses a relevant and crucial topic: the integration of the SDGs—a new educational challenge that cuts across disciplines—into higher education, particularly within the Latin American context, which faces specific sustainability challenges. It applies a well-established theoretical framework (SoC and CBAM) precisely to the integration of SDGs in higher education, providing a solid structure for analyzing teachers’ concerns. It draws on a large (1,566 participants) and diverse sample from four Latin American countries and nine universities, enhancing the robustness and potential generalizability of the results.

The paper identifies specific differences in concerns based on key factors such as experience and disciplinary area, offering practical insights for targeted interventions. The discussion offers detailed interpretations of the findings and suggests implications and recommendations for institutions and future professional development programs. The statistical methodology (Welch ANOVA) is appropriate given the violation of normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions, as well explained in the methodology section.

The methodology outlines the participants, instruments, and statistical analysis. However, specific details about the content of the 35 adapted SoCQ items for the SDGs are limited to a few examples. It is stated that the SoCQ was adapted to the SDG theme, but this process is not explained. This omission may hinder a full assessment of how accurately the tool captured SDG-specific concerns and, more broadly, weakens the transparency of this important methodological axis.

The study uses purposive sampling, which, while appropriate for targeting a specific group, may limit generalizability compared to random sampling. This point can be explicitly recalled since the concern for generalizability is acknowledged by the authors, who rightly note that the specific cultural and educational context of Latin America may limit global generalizability.

The analysis focuses on the effects of teaching experience and disciplinary area on the stages of concern. Although other background variables (gender, degree type, ICT experience, SDG knowledge, etc.) were collected, the analysis presented (at least in the excerpts provided) focuses solely on experience and field of study. It is unclear whether the other variables were analyzed but not presented, or deemed irrelevant to the main research questions. Including a more complete analysis of how these additional variables (e.g., prior SDG knowledge or ICT use experience) affect concerns could add further depth to the findings, helping to reinforce the argument that the two selected variables are indeed the most important.

Specific Suggestions

Between lines 69 and 79, the discussion of the compatibility between ExConTra and the SDGs may be too brief. The true educational challenge of the SDGs is not just to move beyond the "traditional" teacher-centered model towards the "modern" learner-centered approach. Rather, it is to reconceive education as a community-based effort, treating the educational challenge as one of complexity where the impact and interdependence of individuals on each other becomes central. In this sense, the real challenge is not only shifting focus from teacher to student, but rather elevating to a community level—both locally and globally.

Regarding the finding that SDGs are more strongly felt and embraced by younger individuals, one possible explanation could be the generational gap and the fact that the SDG paradigm is relatively recent, having been created to address problems that the younger generation perceives as urgent. Thus, the values of the younger generation and those embedded in the SDGs are coherent and aligned.

Specific aspects

Novelty: The research question regarding the effect of teaching experience and disciplinary field on concerns related to SDG integration in Latin American higher education—studied through the SoC/CBAM framework—is original and meaningful. The specific findings on group differences (young vs. senior, Health Sciences vs. others) are both new in context and methodologically grounded, while being aligned with prior research cited appropriately.

Scope: The topic clearly falls within the domains of higher education, sustainability, and teacher professional development. It is well-suited to the journal’s scope.

Significance: The findings are appropriately interpreted, connected to the theoretical framework and previous literature. The conclusions are justified and supported by statistical evidence. The hypotheses (clearly embedded in the research questions) are well formulated. Identifying specific concerns is valuable for guiding future professionalization strategies and SDG integration.

Quality: The article is well-written and appropriate for academic publication. Data and statistical analyses (tables, F-values, significance, mean differences, etc.) are presented clearly.

Scientific Soundness: The study is well-designed as a quantitative investigation. Analyses were conducted with technical rigor (appropriate use of Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests). The data appear sufficiently robust to support the conclusions, which are backed by significant statistical findings.

Reader Interest: The findings and conclusions are of interest to scholars in higher education, sustainability education, teacher development, and anyone involved in SDG curriculum integration. The application of the SoC/CBAM framework and the focus on the Latin American context provide specific added value.

English Language: The English used in the text appears appropriate and comprehensible for scientific publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you very much for your encouaraging comments and fruitful suggestions, which helped me to effectivelly revisese the manuscript.

Comment 1: Between lines 69 and 79, discussing the compatibility between ExConTra and the SDGs may be too brief.

Response 1:  The ExConTra was further discussed. See lines 73-80 in red color. .

Comment 2: .......the real challenge is not only shifting focus from teacher to student, but rather elevating to a community level—both locally and globally.

Response 2: I do agree with your comment. In various sections, this was considered by stressing both the local-global and concerning teaching methodologies and course curriculum development.

Comment 3: Regarding the finding that SDGs are more strongly felt and embraced by younger individuals, one possible explanation could be the generational gap and the fact that the SDG paradigm is relatively recent, having been created to address problems that the younger generation perceives as urgent. Thus, the values of the younger generation and those embedded in the SDGs are coherent and aligned.

Response 3: Yes, I agree, and these points are stressed both in the results and discussion sections. See, for example, lines 389-396.  It is also reflected in Table 5.

Thank you a lot again!

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors It is recommended that the manuscript be published in its current state.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editorial Office,

Thank you for your message. I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript titled “Professionalization of Academic Teaching in Latin American Universities to Address SDGs Applying the Stages of Concern Theory.”

I confirm that I am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors and consider the manuscript to be sufficiently improved. I support its publication in Sustainability.

Kind regards.