Fostering Education for Sustainable Development Through Narrative Competence: A Mixed-Methods Study of a Life Design Thinking Module

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper reports an interesting experience, but the relevance of its contribution is blurred.

The initial parts, about LDT, are somewhat repetitive, and the text presents several times alignment of its proposal with SDG 4.7 - almost twenty times. Repeating an argument does not make it better.

The work assumes that the ability to reflect and reorganize memories of episodes from school life leads to better students and professionals, but it did not provide any empirical evidence of these relationships.

I think the instructional framework naturally leads people to make reports with the desired characteristics used in their assessment. People are guided to reach the expected goal of a coherent narrative of their emotions from the episodes of their lives. The steps of the framework lead to the construction of this writing style.

However, what is the empirical evidence that framework contributed these people life?

The participants, from a variety of backgrounds, voluntarily joined the process. Therefore, one could infer that there was already a predisposition to pursue the framework’s objectives – to build a reflective narrative of their history. However, it ignores those who do not see relevance in this, and the number of people in each of these two opposing groups. It seems to me that the work suffers from the survivor’s bias since it considered just people already predisposed to accept the proposed framework.

Besides, it is not clear how the proposal could be incorporated into a course curriculum.

 

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers an innovative and valuable contribution to the literature by addressing the pressing need for education that promotes sustainable, self-directed development. It does so by introducing a five-phase narrative instruction pre-module grounded in the Life Design Thinking (LDT) framework. The study provides new and significant insights through its intervention with 14 adult learners in a group setting, evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. This included rubric-based analysis of 101 written narratives and thematic analysis of reflective content.

The paper effectively situates its contribution within both established and contemporary theoretical frameworks and engages critically with relevant research. It demonstrates a strong grasp of the literature and references an appropriate range of sources, positioning the study within the broader discourse on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

The study’s contribution is clearly defined in the introduction, with explicit objectives and well-articulated research questions. The research design and methodology are robust, and the findings are convincingly supported by the data. The discussion is coherent and balanced, integrating the results with existing literature and providing thorough, well-referenced analysis.

Ultimately, this paper enhances the field by contributing to ESD goals, offering a transferable framework for building narrative resilience, fostering sustainable learning, and promoting future-readiness across diverse educational contexts. The manuscript is clearly written, well-structured, and accessible, with concise and accurate language throughout.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2：

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and encouraging comments. We are grateful for your recognition of this study’s contribution to promoting sustainable, self-directed development through the proposed five-phase narrative instruction module grounded in the Life Design Thinking (LDT) framework.

We especially appreciate your acknowledgement of the study’s theoretical foundations, methodological rigor, and alignment with the goals of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Your affirmation regarding the clarity of the research objectives, the strength of literature integration, and the coherence of the discussion is particularly encouraging.

Your generous feedback has guided us in the final polishing of the manuscript, and we have carefully ensured clarity, conciseness, and accessibility throughout the narrative.

Thank you again for your kind support of this work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

File uploaded

1 | P a g e
Report review manuscript No (3675953):
I reviewed the study titled " Fostering Education for Sustainable Development through Narrative
Competence: A Mixed-Methods Study of a Life Design Thinking Module". After a thorough
evaluation of the manuscript's theoretical depth, methodological rigor, empirical evidence, and
scholarly contribution, here is my analysis of study quality in detail for all sections and academic
recommendations.
1- Abstract:
Strengths
✓ Clearly states the study’s purpose, context, and theoretical framing within Life
Design Thinking (LDT).
✓ Summarizes methodology (mixed-methods, rubric-scoring of 101 narratives,
thematic analysis) and key quantitative gains across five dimensions.
✓ Explicitly links outcomes to SDG 4.7 and broader sustainability education
goals, highlighting practical relevance.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Lacks specific numerical values for “significant improvement” in each
dimension (e.g., percent gains). I suggest including key statistics (e.g., “technical
application improved by 80.9 %”) to quantify claims.
o Does not mention sample size or participant demographics, which are critical
for assessing scope. I suggest briefly stating “n = 14 adult learners” and context
(“group-based setting in Taiwan”).
o The final sentence overstates generalizability (“offers a scalable model”) without
noting pilot nature. I suggest noting “preliminary evidence supports potential
scalability pending further validation.”
2- Introduction:
Strengths
✓ Situates the study in the “postmodern era” challenge and gaps in existing
career/educational models.
✓ Aligns research with UN SDGs (particularly 4.7, plus SDG 3 and 8),
emphasizing interdisciplinary impact.
✓ Clearly articulates research problem and need for integrated, group-based
pedagogies.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Background subsection is lengthy and occasionally repetitive (e.g., multiple
citations of Bauman 2000). I suggest streamlining 1.1 by consolidating
overlapping citations (e.g., combine [3, 4] discussions).
o Research problem (1.2) reiterates literature review points rather than delineating
specific study gaps. I suggest in 1.2 explicitly highlighting “no existing group-
based LDT model has been empirically tested” to sharpen the gap.
o Section 1.4 (“Structure of the Article”) could be moved to the end of the
Introduction or compressed. I suggest reducing the Article Structure paragraph
to a single sentence, or relocating it to the end of Section 1.
3- Literature Review:
Strengths
2 | P a g e
✓ Thorough coverage of narrative learning theory, career construction, and
design thinking foundations.
✓ Identifies clear research gaps in group-based narrative instruction and
assessment tools.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Overly segmented subsections lead to some conceptual redundancy between
narrative theory (2.2) and competence discussion (2.3). I suggest merging 2.2
and 2.3 into a unified “Narrative Learning and Competence” section to reduce
overlap.
o Limited critical appraisal of contrasting views or potential drawbacks of
narrative pedagogy. I suggest including critique of narrative approaches (e.g.,
challenges in scaling, cultural variability) to balance the review.
o Heavy reliance on older foundational works, with fewer citations of very recent
empirical studies (post-2020). I suggest adding two or three recent studies (2021–
2024) on digital or AI-supported narrative interventions to update the
landscape.
4- Theoretical Foundation & Research Framework:
Strengths
✓ Presents original LDT framework integrating design thinking’s five phases
with narrative constructivism.
✓ Figures 1 and 2 effectively map conceptual foundations to instructional phases
and narrative dimensions.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o The distinction between LDT’s conceptual rationale and the specific five-phase
instructional module is sometimes blurred. I suggest preceding 3.2 with a brief
summary paragraph that clearly separates “LDT as theory” vs. “LDT module as
application.”
o Hypotheses under 3.3 are stated but lack explicit operational definitions of key
constructs (e.g., “narrative competence”). I suggest defining each hypothesis
variable in measurable terms (e.g., “narrative competence scored via 5-point
rubric across 5 dimensions”), and considering presenting hypotheses in tabular
form for clarity.
5- Materials & Methods:
Strengths
✓ Comprehensive description of mixed-methods design, participant
demographics (n = 14, age/gender/education).
✓ Clear articulation of each instructional phase (TS, FS, PS, SS, AS) and
associated tasks.
✓ Rigorous data analysis plan, including rubric rating, thematic continuity
tracking, and triangulation.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Sample size justification is missing; no power analysis or rationale for n = 14. I
suggest adding brief justification for sample size, or acknowledge the pilot
nature and its exploratory limits.
3 | P a g e
o Inter-rater reliability procedures are mentioned but specific statistics (e.g.,
Cohen’s κ) are not reported. I suggest reporting inter-rater reliability metrics
(e.g., “Cohen’s κ = 0.82”) and describe calibration steps.
o Use of NVivo is noted but details on coding protocol (e.g., codebook
development) are sparse. I suggest including an overview of thematic codebook
development (number of initial codes, consensus process).
6- Results:
Strengths
✓ Quantitative results clearly presented with mean scores, growth rates, and
visualizations (Tables 4–6, Figures 6–7b).
✓ Qualitative excerpts effectively illustrate semantic deepening and application
of narrative techniques.
✓ Case study (P07) provides rich, illustrative depth.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Overabundance of figures and tables in the results section may overwhelm
readers; some could be moved to an Appendix. I suggest relocating detailed
dimension-by-dimension figures (e.g., 7a, 7b) to supplementary materials,
retaining only overall trend charts.
o Statistical significance testing (e.g., paired t-tests) is not reported, making it hard
to judge whether gains exceed chance. I suggest conducting and reporting
simple inferential tests (e.g., PH1 vs. PH5 paired t-tests) to confirm significance.
o Thematic continuity metrics (Table 8) are described, but without reporting
variance or confidence intervals. I suggest providing standard deviations or
confidence intervals alongside mean thematic continuity scores.
7- Discussion & Limitations and Future Directions:
Strengths
✓ Integrates findings with ESD and LDT theory, highlighting metacognitive and
identity formation implications.
✓ Transparently acknowledges key limitations (sample size, cultural context,
and interpretive judgment) and proposes future research avenues.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Discussion sometimes reiterates results rather than synthesizing deeper
theoretical insights or practical lessons. I suggest emphasizing two or three most
novel pedagogical implications (e.g., group vs. individual narrative scaffolding)
in depth.
o Future directions remain somewhat generic (e.g., “explore digital storytelling
tools”) without prioritization. I suggest prioritizing future research suggestions
by feasibility and impact (e.g., first test module in different cultural setting
before AI tools), and linking limitations more directly to design modifications
(e.g., adjust phase length or peer-feedback structure).
8- Conclusion and Implications:
Strengths
✓ Concisely reiterates the module’s contributions to narrative competence and
sustainable learning, tied to SDG 4.7.
4 | P a g e
✓ Offers clear “take-away” statements for educators and policymakers regarding
scalable narrative pedagogy.
Weaknesses with recommendation
o Lacks a brief “call to action” or roadmap for practitioners wishing to adopt the
module. I suggest adding a bulleted “practice implications” list (e.g.,
recommended session lengths, required facilitator training).
o The concluding statement could better reflect the pilot nature and need for
broader validation. I suggest closing with a forward-looking vision: “Next steps
include multi-site trials and integration with digital platforms.”
Overall, the manuscript presents a novel, well-structured pedagogical intervention with robust mixed-
methods evidence. To enhance clarity and rigor, tighten sections to reduce redundancy, report
inferential statistics and reliability metrics, and temper generalizability claims while offering concrete
guidance for future research and practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I tahnk the authors' attention and their effort in making changes to the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I congratulate you on a meticulously revised manuscript in which you have comprehensively and precisely implemented all of my recommendations. The added statistics in the Abstract, the clarified research gap, the operationally defined hypotheses, the enhanced methodological transparency (including reliability metrics and codebook details), the judicious relocation of figures, the incorporation of inferential analyses, and the strengthened pedagogical and practical implications all significantly elevate the clarity, rigor, and impact of your study.

Your thoroughness and responsiveness to the feedback are exemplary. I find that the final version fully satisfies the peer review requirements and meets the high standards of the journal.

With appreciation for your diligent efforts,