Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Integrating Education for Sustainable Development in the Chilean Curriculum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract needs some key matric values to support your results. Furthermore, methodology needs further enrichment in abstract about which type of techniques were used to analyse the data of mix methodology.
2. “Intergovernmental Panel” which country? This background for intro is not convincing, and later then you referring to UNESCO which is an international body and claiming that they responded to this. Needs changes.
3. The study lacks clearly stated research questions, weakening its direction and purpose — these should be explicitly formulated at the end of the introduction.
4. The literature review is largely descriptive and repetitive, missing critical synthesis — it should engage more analytically with sources and identify clear gaps.
5. The summary in section 2 must be merged with other sections or deleted. Furthermore, the literature is very generalise. In-depth study and refering is missing. The authors mostly discussed very generalise findings which everyone knows. Its suggested to improve the literature section further with more recent studies. Following articles must be considered and many more; doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241239471; . doi: 10.1016/j.eesus.2025.100032; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177255
6. The analysis section is very poor just focusing of “frequencies and percentages” are not enough. Authors must run advanced statistical analysis such as structural equation modelling, regression etc etc.
7. Claims about curriculum shortcomings are general and not substantiated with primary curriculum content — actual curriculum documents should be analysed directly.
8. No analysis is provided on differences across school types or student demographics — stratified analysis would reveal important contextual variations.
9. Discussion of structural barriers is disconnected from broader policy literature — the authors should link findings to known issues in policy implementation failure.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The abstract needs some key matric values to support your results. Furthermore, methodology needs further enrichment in abstract about which type of techniques were used to analyse the data of mix methodology.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have improved the abstract and added more information about the methodology and the techniques used. Given the nature of the questionnaire analysis, which does not include inferential statistics, we have not included metric values.
Comments 2: “Intergovernmental Panel” which country? This background for intro is not convincing, and later then you referring to UNESCO which is an international body and claiming that they responded to this. Needs changes. Response 2: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a United Nations body that assesses the science related to climate change. Therefore, we believe it is a relevant source providing scientific support for the introduction.
Comments 3: The study lacks clearly stated research questions, weakening its direction and purpose — these should be explicitly formulated at the end of the introduction.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the research question in the introduction.   Comments 4: The literature review is largely descriptive and repetitive, missing critical synthesis — it should engage more analytically with sources and identify clear gaps. Response 4: We appreciate this comment, therefore, the literature review has been revised and edited to identify clear gaps.   Comments 5: The summary in section 2 must be merged with other sections or deleted. Furthermore, the literature is very generalise. In-depth study and refering is missing. The authors mostly discussed very generalise findings which everyone knows. Its suggested to improve the literature section further with more recent studies. Following articles must be considered and many more; doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241239471; . doi: 10.1016/j.eesus.2025.100032; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177255 Response 5: Thank you for this observation. We have deleted the summary in section 2 as suggested. Regarding the proposed articles, after careful review we consider that their focus does not directly align with the scope and objectives of our study, and therefore they have not been included. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the need to strengthen the literature section with more recent and in-depth studies, and we have incorporated additional, more relevant references to address this point.   Comments 6: The analysis section is very poor just focusing of “frequencies and percentages” are not enough. Authors must run advanced statistical analysis such as structural equation modelling, regression etc etc. Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge the suggestion to apply advanced statistical analyses such as structural equation modelling or regression. However, the primary objective and design of this study are qualitative in nature, focusing on in-depth thematic exploration rather than quantitative modelling. The descriptive statistics presented (frequencies and percentages) are intended only to contextualise the qualitative findings, which form the core contribution of the research. We believe this approach is the most appropriate to address our research questions and the nature of the data collected.   Comments 7: Claims about curriculum shortcomings are general and not substantiated with primary curriculum content — actual curriculum documents should be analysed directly. Response 7: Thank you for this observation. We agree with the need to ground our claims in primary curriculum content. Accordingly, we have incorporated a direct analysis of the official Chilean primary school curriculum documents, focusing on their alignment with ESD principles. This analysis has been added to the literature review in the section titled “The Chilean Educational Curriculum and ESD”, strengthening the evidence base for our discussion of curriculum shortcomings.   Comments 8: No analysis is provided on differences across school types or student demographics — stratified analysis would reveal important contextual variations. Response 8: Thank you for this observation. We recognise the potential value of a stratified analysis by school type or student demographics. However, given the small sample size and the exploratory scope of this study, such disaggregation would not yield statistically meaningful or generalisable insights. Our primary objective was to identify overarching patterns and themes relevant across the sample, rather than to compare subgroups. We believe this approach is the most appropriate to address the study’s aims and data limitations.   Comments 9: Discussion of structural barriers is disconnected from broader policy literature — the authors should link findings to known issues in policy implementation failure. Response 9: Thank you for this observation. Our original analysis focused on teachers’ experiences and perceptions of structural barriers. We have now strengthened this section by linking these findings to the broader policy implementation literature, incorporating perspectives from relevant authors to contextualise teachers’ views within known challenges of policy enactment and failure. This integration helps to connect the lived experiences of participants with established debates in the policy field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Firstly, I would like to congratulate you because your manuscript addresses a timely and important topic: sustainability education, specifically in Chile’s secondary curriculum. Your work highlights critical gaps and gathers perspectives from both teachers and students, offering a foundation for further discussion. However, several revisions are necessary to enhance the manuscript’s methodological transparency, presentation clarity, and overall scholarly rigor.

First, there is an important formatting issue that requires attention: the reference numbering does not currently comply with the journal’s style guide. Citations should appear in numerical order starting from [1] based on their first occurrence in the text, yet the first citation readers encounter is numbered [12]. Please verify and correct the numbering sequence throughout both the in-text citations and reference list to meet the journal’s requirements. 

Regarding methodology, the online questionnaires for teachers and students need to be presented. Readers would benefit from access to the full survey instruments, either as supplementary materials or in an appendix. The manuscript mentions these surveys include both closed and open questions (Line 257), but additional details are needed. Please clarify whether the questionnaires were developed ad-hoc or adapted from established instruments in the literature and provide information about their validity and reliability.

The low teacher response rate (around 15%, n=21 out of 138) warrants discussion as it may introduce sampling bias. Please address potential reasons for this low participation rate and consider how it might affect the generalizability of your findings.

The presentation of results could be significantly improved. Currently, quantitative survey data and qualitative interview findings are interwoven in ways that may confuse readers (e.g., Lines 329, 390, 397, 426, 433). I recommend restructuring this section to clearly separate quantitative and qualitative results before synthesizing them in the discussion. Additionally, please ensure all figures (currently Figures 1, 2, and the mislabelled Figure 6) are properly cited in the text and regenerated with higher resolution, as the current versions are difficult to read, particularly the percentages in Figures 1-2 and the x-axis labels in Figure 3. 

For the qualitative components, please provide more methodological details about the semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Which protocol was followed? Were the question guides adapted from previous studies? Providing the interview/focus group guides as supplementary material would greatly enhance reproducibility.  

Finally, some contextual clarification could significantly enhance the manuscript's value for international readers. When examining teachers' challenges with new methodologies (lines 508-511) and curriculum implementation (Interviewee 7), perhaps it would be valuable to consider including a concise overview of Chile's current teacher training model. This might usefully address: (1) how pre-service programs develop teachers' pedagogical content knowledge, (2) the expected competencies regarding active methodologies, and (3) the approach to didactic transposition - how teachers are prepared to transform disciplinary knowledge into teachable content. Such contextual framing could help readers unfamiliar with the Chilean system better appreciate both the reported challenges and opportunities in implementing sustainability education.

Sincerely yours.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: First, there is an important formatting issue that requires attention: the reference numbering does not currently comply with the journal’s style guide. Citations should appear in numerical order starting from [1] based on their first occurrence in the text, yet the first citation readers encounter is numbered [12]. Please verify and correct the numbering sequence throughout both the in-text citations and reference list to meet the journal’s requirements.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised both the in-text citations and the reference list to ensure compliance with the journal’s style guide. All citations now appear in correct numerical order starting from [1] according to their first occurrence in the text.
Comments 2: Regarding methodology, the online questionnaires for teachers and students need to be presented. Readers would benefit from access to the full survey instruments, either as supplementary materials or in an appendix. The manuscript mentions these surveys include both closed and open questions (Line 257), but additional details are needed. Please clarify whether the questionnaires were developed ad-hoc or adapted from established instruments in the literature and provide information about their validity and reliability. Response 2: We appreciate this comment and have now included the full teacher and student questionnaires as an appendix to the manuscript. The questionnaires were developed ad hoc for this study, based on the research objectives and context. Additional details regarding their structure, content, and the procedures followed to ensure their validity and reliability have been provided in the methodology section.

 

Comments 3: The low teacher response rate (around 15%, n=21 out of 138) warrants discussion as it may introduce sampling bias. Please address potential reasons for this low participation rate and consider how it might affect the generalizability of your findings.

Response 3: We appreciate this important comment and have now included a discussion addressing it in the manuscript. The low response rate from teachers may be attributed to the timing of the questionnaire, which coincided with the end of the school term. During this period, many teachers were occupied with end-of-term responsibilities, likely limiting their availability to participate. While this may affect the generalisability of the survey data, the sample includes teachers from different subjects, genders, and levels of seniority, providing some diversity in perspectives. Moreover, the findings are complemented by interviews and focus groups, which offered a more in-depth understanding of teachers’ views.

 

Comments 4: The presentation of results could be significantly improved. Currently, quantitative survey data and qualitative interview findings are interwoven in ways that may confuse readers (e.g., Lines 329, 390, 397, 426, 433). I recommend restructuring this section to clearly separate quantitative and qualitative results before synthesizing them in the discussion. Additionally, please ensure all figures (currently Figures 1, 2, and the mislabelled Figure 6) are properly cited in the text and regenerated with higher resolution, as the current versions are difficult to read, particularly the percentages in Figures 1-2 and the x-axis labels in Figure 3.

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have restructured the Results section to clearly separate quantitative survey findings from qualitative interview data, presenting each systematically before synthesising them in the Discussion. This restructuring improves clarity and reader comprehension. Additionally, all figures (including Figures 1, 2, and the previously mislabelled Figure 6) have been correctly cited in the text. We have also regenerated the figures with higher resolution to ensure all text, percentages, and axis labels are clearly legible.

 

Comments 5: For the qualitative components, please provide more methodological details about the semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Which protocol was followed? Were the question guides adapted from previous studies? Providing the interview/focus group guides as supplementary material would greatly enhance reproducibility. 

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable feedback. The semi-structured interview and focus group guides were specifically developed for this study, grounded in the research objectives and informed by a review of relevant literature on education for sustainable development. Although not directly adapted from previous studies, the guides were designed following established qualitative research frameworks to ensure conceptual rigor and relevance to the target population. The development process included internal expert review and pilot testing with a small sample to refine question clarity and alignment with study aims. For transparency and reproducibility, the full interview and focus group guides have been included as supplementary material in the appendices.

 

Comments 6: Finally, some contextual clarification could significantly enhance the manuscript's value for international readers. When examining teachers' challenges with new methodologies (lines 508-511) and curriculum implementation (Interviewee 7), perhaps it would be valuable to consider including a concise overview of Chile's current teacher training model. This might usefully address: (1) how pre-service programs develop teachers' pedagogical content knowledge, (2) the expected competencies regarding active methodologies, and (3) the approach to didactic transposition - how teachers are prepared to transform disciplinary knowledge into teachable content. Such contextual framing could help readers unfamiliar with the Chilean system better appreciate both the reported challenges and opportunities in implementing sustainability education.

Response 6: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have added a concise overview of Chile’s current teacher training model to the manuscript in the conclusions, addressing the development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service programs, the expected competencies related to active methodologies, and the approach to didactic transposition, including how teachers are prepared to transform disciplinary knowledge into teachable content. This contextual framing has been integrated to enhance understanding for international readers and to better situate the challenges and opportunities identified in implementing sustainability education within the Chilean educational system.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper has been improved and can be considered for publication. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine. 

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and improved the English throughout to enhance clarity, readability, and alignment with academic writing standards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. The changes you have implemented have greatly improved its quality and clarity, and I appreciate your efforts. Nevertheless, to ensure the manuscript fully aligns with the journal's formatting guidelines, one final requirement remains: please ensure that all figures (Figures 1-4) and new appendices (Appendices A, B, and C) are cited in the text at the appropriate points. For example, on lines 288-289, please modify the text to read: "...one for teachers and one for students (see Appendices A and B)." Similarly, on lines 303-304, the text should be updated to: "...focus group question guides (see Appendix C) were specifically developed..."

All in all, congratulations again on your excellent work.

Sincerely yours.

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted file.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. The changes you have implemented have greatly improved its quality and clarity, and I appreciate your efforts. Nevertheless, to ensure the manuscript fully aligns with the journal's formatting guidelines, one final requirement remains: please ensure that all figures (Figures 1-4) and new appendices (Appendices A, B, and C) are cited in the text at the appropriate points. For example, on lines 288-289, please modify the text to read: "...one for teachers and one for students (see Appendices A and B)." Similarly, on lines 303-304, the text should be updated to: "...focus group question guides (see Appendix C) were specifically developed..."

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree with this comment and have revised the manuscript to ensure that all figures (Figures 1–4) and appendices (Appendices A, B, and C) are now cited at the appropriate points in the text. We have also implemented the suggested changes on lines 288–289 and 303–304 to align with the journal’s formatting guidelines.