Evaluating Problem-Based Learning in an ESG-Centered General Education Course: A Mixed-Methods Study of Student Competency Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Evaluating ESG-Centered PBL in a General Education Course: A Mixed‑Methods Study of Student Competency Development" addresses the integration of environmental, social, and governance content into a general education course through problem-based learning methodology to achieve sustainability-related competencies in university students. Therefore, it presents a topic of constant interest in teaching and the importance of active methodologies in learning from a constructivist perspective.

In terms of form, the criteria for scientific writing are met. The title is clear and descriptive. The IMRD structure is well-defined, with explicit research questions. In addition, the bibliography is up-to-date and relevant, coming from prestigious and influential scientific publications.

The main strengths of the paper are a solid theoretical framework, a mixed methodology, and the use of the nationally validated UCAN (University Career and Competency Assessment Network) instrument.

The research has practical implications for general education because it provides a replicable framework for incorporating sustainability skills into general university education courses. It should be noted that the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of the three-phase model (fundamental knowledge, practical skills, industrial application), thus validating the relevance of teaching ESG to students from various academic disciplines. PBL focused on ESG issues can effectively foster key competencies and improve student engagement. The authors suggest extending the duration of the project, incorporating advanced data tools, and strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration for future iterations of the course.

However, there is a perceived weakness in the size of the sample considered in the research. To overcome possible biases and limitations in the robustness of the conclusions, it is suggested that qualitative methodologies be incorporated, based on a concept of methodological triangulation, for example, by applying semi-structured interviews or discussion groups.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission to the Sustainability journal.

I believe that it is an interesting paper, which aligns with the scope of the journal.

However, there are aspects of the manuscript which I believe requires further attention and amendment.

Please see comments below:

• From the outset, I believe that the title could be simplified to improve clarity for the reader. Therefore, alluding to ESG in the subtitle, and including problem based learning as the full term instead of the acronym.
• The research gap, problem, or opportunity, I believe, should be highlighted in the abstract.
• Please include a closing paragraph in the introduction, detailing the following sections of the manuscript and why they are important to meeting the aim of the study.
• I believe section 2 could be retitled as background, with an additional subsection discussing PBL implementation in education

• • From there, section 2.2 could be titled as 'Context'
  • Section 2, I believe, requires deeper discussion concerning current sustainability education policy and acknowledgement of recent research of examples of sustainability education in practice.
• Sources are required for the following, introductory sentence of section 2.1:
  • "In recent years, with the promotion of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in higher education, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has evolved beyond mere knowledge transmission, emphasizing instead students’ participation in action, reflection, and social practice."
• I believe that section 2.3 should be renumbered as section 3, as this appears to be the methodological discussion commencing.
  • Section 3. Results then being section 4.
• I suggest that the discussion section includes 3 subsections which go into further detail across 3 themes. 
  • These could possibly be:
    • Competencies
    • Sustainability education
    • Course design and expectations
• Please include a subsection within the conclusions section for implications and recommendations.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

0 Abstract

This section is good: it points out the research topic, the methods used and the main results. No improvements are needed.

1. Introduction

This section can be improved as it describes directly what the project does without much scientific context information.

Possible improvements: 

Some abbreviations are not introduced at first use (lines 40, 45, 47)

As there is no chapter regarding literature review the introduction could describe a bit more about other studies/findings of similar research projects and their findings, before describing the research project. This is done in 2.1 Background but it would be better to have it in the introduction than in the Chapter materials and Methods. 

 2. Materials and methods

2.1 see comments above to move them to the introduction.

The information in Figures 10-17 should be translated to English before being captured as figures, so the reader of this English language Journal, including the reviewers can read and understand them. In this form this is not possible.  If for some of the Figures this is not possible, it is better to eliminate those Figures, than leaving them in the paper in the present form.

3. Results

I cannot assess the accuracy of statistical  methods as I lack a deeper understanding of these methods. Here another reviewer with more knowledge in this field is needed.

4. Discussion

This chapter is fine, but a little too small compared to the consistent results section. Extending it would add greatly to the value of the paper.

5. Conclusion

This chapter is fine, but a little too small compared to the consistent results section. Extending it would add greatly to the value of the paper.

   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is well written. It is well referenced, and the authors use recent scholarship as well.  The study is contextualized within broader policy frameworks.  The research design is set out clearly and the implementation of the research is clearly explained. The research methods are appropriate for the study. The authors are methodical and logical in the presentation of their thesis. 

The language is academic and clear.   The images are good and inform the text. 

Overall, this is a very good article. 

  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the resubmission of your manuscript to the Sustainability journal. I believe that you have carefully read and understood the review comments and that appropriate changes have been implemented.

I am happy to recommend an accept decision at this stage.