Unsustainability in Sustainability Education: Limits of Technology In Situ

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

The article looks into the problem that come up when trying to use technology in schools to teach about sustainability in a variety of real-life settings, mainly in Greece, Romania, and Italy, where resources are limited.  It show that plans for universal technology often forgets important sociotechnical, infrastructural, and human factors, which makes it hard to use them effectively for learning about sustainability.  The study use in-situ experiments and participatory design workshops to show that there are differences between how educational tools are supposed to be used and how they are actually used in the classroom. This show how important it is for technology to be implemented in a way that allows everyone to access it and has a lasting effect.

Below is a review points section by section stating strengths, weaknesses and recomendations for improvement:

Introduction:

The introduction gives a good background on the problems facing sustainability education, lays out the research questions clearly, and places the work in the context of current academic frameworks such as Sustainable Interaction Design. But some parts are hard to understand and repeat themselves, which might make readers less interested. It would be easier to understand and follow if the discussion of contradictions was broken up into shorter, more focused parts and there were fewer long explanations.

Materials and Methods:

This section gives a full and clear explanation of the interdisciplinary, ethnographic, and interactive method, covering specific guidelines, workshops, and moral concerns. However, the large amount of information about the participants and processes can be too much for readers to handle, and it can make it hard to understand important methodological points. Adding clear subheadings and condensing details of steps would make the text easier to read and navigate.

Results:

The use of both qualitative and quantitative data in three different case studies gives a rich picture of empirical results. Still, the results story doesn't always have short summaries or visual aids that could help readers understand more complicated results better. It is suggested that summary tables, diagrams, and a better separation between observation and interpretation be used.

Discussion:

This section thoughtfully addresses key contradictions in technology-enhanced sustainability education by combining theoretical insights and real-world proof in a balanced way. Still, it sometimes has problems with being too wordy and repeating itself. Organizing the talk into sections with similar topics and removing unnecessary information would help make the arguments clearer and easier to understand.

Conclusion:

The conclusion follow naturally from the data and gives useful suggestions for changing practice and design in places with few resources. But it could be shorter and clearer if it clearly listed the main points that should be remembered and where future study goes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used in the manuscript is usually clear and good enough for academic writing.  It's clear enough for scholars from around the world to understand the authors' complicated academic and ethnographic ideas.  But some parts could use more editing to cut down on wordiness, improve sentence flow, and make the whole thing easier to read.  It would be easier to understand, especially for people who don't speak English as their first language, if longer, more complicated phrases were broken down and academic terms were used consistently.  There are some small mistakes in the grammar and word choice, but they don't make it very hard to understand.  The English quality would be fine for scholarly publishing if it were carefully revised to make it clearer and easier to read.

Author Response

Comment 1 - Introduction:

The introduction gives a good background on the problems facing sustainability education, lays out the research questions clearly, and places the work in the context of current academic frameworks such as Sustainable Interaction Design. But some parts are hard to understand and repeat themselves, which might make readers less interested. It would be easier to understand and follow if the discussion of contradictions was broken up into shorter, more focused parts and there were fewer long explanations.

Answer 1

We agreed with the reviewers’ comment and provided a full revision of the introduction according to the reviewer's recommendations: it has been reduced while maintaining coherence and consistency.

Comment 2 - Materials and Methods:

This section gives a full and clear explanation of the interdisciplinary, ethnographic, and interactive method, covering specific guidelines, workshops, and moral concerns. However, the large amount of information about the participants and processes can be too much for readers to handle, and it can make it hard to understand important methodological points. Adding clear subheadings and condensing details of steps would make the text easier to read and navigate.

Answer 2

The entire section has been redefined with the organization of different distinct and easy-to-read sections, one for the Materials and Methods, one for the Activity implementation and one for the Data collection. Each section has a limited number of subheadings entitling the paragraph.

Comment 3 - Results:

The use of both qualitative and quantitative data in three different case studies gives a rich picture of empirical results. Still, the results story doesn't always have short summaries or visual aids that could help readers understand more complicated results better. It is suggested that summary tables, diagrams, and a better separation between observation and interpretation be used.

Answer 3

We left the summative discussion of the results in the Discussion section. This paragraph includes a bullet list with the summaries of each main finding of the research. The authors preferred not to include further tables in order to avoid making the document a schematic.

Comment 4 - Discussion:

This section thoughtfully addresses key contradictions in technology-enhanced sustainability education by combining theoretical insights and real-world proof in a balanced way. Still, it sometimes has problems with being too wordy and repeating itself. Organising the talk into sections with similar topics and removing unnecessary information would help make the arguments clearer and easier to understand.

Answer 4

The discussion section has been revised in order to improve consistency and avoid repetition. 

Comment 5 - Conclusion:

The conclusion follow naturally from the data and gives useful suggestions for changing practice and design in places with few resources. But it could be shorter and clearer if it clearly listed the main points that should be remembered and where future study goes.

Answer 5

The conclusion has been revised to highlights on the need for designing adaptable solutions, the quest for regenerative practices, and the relevance of an holistic approach, as suggestions for the designers.

Comment 6 - Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used in the manuscript is usually clear and good enough for academic writing.  It's clear enough for scholars from around the world to understand the authors' complicated academic and ethnographic ideas.  But some parts could use more editing to cut down on wordiness, improve sentence flow, and make the whole thing easier to read.  It would be easier to understand, especially for people who don't speak English as their first language, if longer, more complicated phrases were broken down and academic terms were used consistently.  There are some small mistakes in the grammar and word choice, but they don't make it very hard to understand.  The English quality would be fine for scholarly publishing if it were carefully revised to make it clearer and easier to read.

Answer 6

The manuscript has been revised according the recommendation of improving the quality of English Language, solving mistakes and finalizing the scientific English style of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this research highlights the need for thorough experimentation, data collection, and analysis to address the misuse of technology and the misinterpretation of educational models. It is also an excellent study conducted in several countries. Furthermore, the theoretical section, along with the conclusions (optional), could be improved. The paper has enormous potential for great impact. The figures and images seem good to me.

The research seeks to adapt educational technologies to be effective with limited resources.

The topic is highly relevant and innovative, fills an important gap, and offers a practical perspective.

The research provides a practical and realistic approach, with specific cases in different countries.

The authors could delve deeper into the criteria used to select and design the activities.

The conclusion aligns with the evidence and arguments presented and addresses the core issue.

References are appropriately cited.

Overall, the tables and figures are clear.

Author Response

Comment 1 

The authors could delve deeper into the criteria used to select and design the activities.

Answer 1

The entire methodological section has been redefined with the organization of different, distinct and easy-to-read sections, one for the Materials and Methods, one for the Activity implementation and one for the Data collection. Each section describes the criteria for designing the activities.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the difficulties of using educational technologies for teaching sustainability concepts to students in real-world settings. Field experiments at primary and secondary schools in Greece, Romania, and Italy showed that contextual factors, especially in low-resource environments, often hinder implementation. The research found that social and technical factors must be considered in design, and that tools require both readiness and contextual adaptation. Effective use depends on iterative adjustment and tailored training. This study concludes that deploying technology tools in situ erases the line between prototype and product, requiring flexibility for equitable adoption.

This study makes a substantive contribution to its field, but its most valuable and compelling findings are unfortunately obscured by a lengthy and turgid introduction and explanation of its methodology. The first three sections of this study are the most problematic. Section 1 (Introduction) is written in needlessly complex, abstract, jargon-laden sentences that tend to obscure, rather than clarify, the main objectives of this research project. Section 2 (Designers’ commitment to sustainability education) and Section 3 (Materials and Methods) are likewise excessively complex, disorganized, and verbose. This reviewer understands that the authors of this article are seeking to convey the intentionally multifaceted interdisciplinary methodology of their research, but the very existence of such interdisciplinary methods would tend to suggest that the explanation of their research methods should be clear, concise, and intelligible to scholars in a broad variety of fields, not veiled in obscure technical diction and verbose, meandering sentences.

One significant limitation of the methodology employed in this study is its reliance upon the concept of "contradiction" in the traditional Marxist sense, which seems intended to reference the inherent tensions that exist within a society. (In a Marxist sense, the term "contradiction" refers to inherent tensions or opposing forces within a system, particularly capitalism, that destabilize it and drive change.) The term "contradiction" appears in the title of this study, and it appears five more times in the actual text. The highly tendentious and relatively opaque concept of "contradiction" does not align or integrate well with the broader, interdisciplinary ethnographic research approach that this study more generally seeks to employ. The problematic concept of "contradiction" might be one underlying reason for the evident incoherence of its argument.

The experimental outcomes of this research are effectively presented in Section 4 (Case-based analysis of results). This section is written in a much more clear, concrete, and detailed manner, and it conveys some highly original and fascinating information about the real-world limitations of cutting-edge teaching technologies in three specific case studies in Greece, Romania, and Italy. These limitations are thoroughly discussed and analyzed in Section 5 (Discussion). Section 6 (Limitations of the research) is likewise clear and effective in its discussion of the unanticipated obstacles that high-technology teaching tools encounter in the real world. Section 7 (Conclusions) is commendably clear and concise, although the final paragraph of this article fails to articulate a clear take-away message, offering the reader instead a long list of desirable characteristics for future technology. What's actually needed in this last paragraph is a concise statement of actionable outcomes. What must future technology designers do to address the real-world problems identified in this study?

I do not recommend publication of this article in its present form. It may be reconsidered after major revision, to address the substantive methodological and and expository issues noted above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Long and meandering sentences throughout the first 3 sections of this article should be revised to make them more clear and concise.

The argument of this study should be more clearly and effectively conveyed, with more explicit deployment of logical connections between concepts.

The "Conclusions" section should more clearly articulate actionable outcomes.

Avoid using the word "this" as a pronoun referring vaguely to a concept mentioned in the previous sentence (for example, in line 148, and many other instances). "This" works better as an article modifying a noun phrase. Avoid redundant "this, this" in line 54.

Careful proofreading is needed in several instances throughout the article; for example:

Line 58: opening parenthesis ( -- lacks a closing parenthesis ).

Line 213: Incoherent sentence, possibly some words are missing: "prototypes in three different a qualitative research approach that investigates"

Author Response

Comment 1 

This study makes a substantive contribution to its field, but its most valuable and compelling findings are unfortunately obscured by a lengthy and turgid introduction and explanation of its methodology. 

The first three sections of this study are the most problematic. 

Section 1 (Introduction) is written in needlessly complex, abstract, jargon-laden sentences that tend to obscure, rather than clarify, the main objectives of this research project. 

Answer 1

The introduction has been revised according to the reviewer's recommendations: it has been reduced while maintaining coherence and consistency.

Comment 2

Section 2 (Designers’ commitment to sustainability education) and Section 3 (Materials and Methods) are likewise excessively complex, disorganized, and verbose. 

Answer 2

Section 2 and section 3 have been revised according to the reviewer's recommendations: their quality has been improved in order to increase coherence, consistency and organization of the text. A revised structure of section 3 has been defined with the organization of two distinct and easy-to-read sections, one for the Materials and Methods and the other for the Activity implementation.

Comment 3 

One significant limitation of the methodology employed in this study is its reliance upon the concept of "contradiction" in the traditional Marxist sense, which seems intended to reference the inherent tensions that exist within a society. (In a Marxist sense, the term "contradiction" refers to inherent tensions or opposing forces within a system, particularly capitalism, that destabilize it and drive change.) The term "contradiction" appears in the title of this study, and it appears five more times in the actual text. 

The highly tendentious and relatively opaque concept of "contradiction" does not align or integrate well with the broader, interdisciplinary ethnographic research approach that this study more generally seeks to employ. The problematic concept of "contradiction" might be one underlying reason for the evident incoherence of its argument.

Answer 3 

We acknowledge the reason for the recommendation to revise the terminology in the title and in the text. The use of “contradiction” may indeed be misleading towards a tendentious concept which is outside the scope of the paper. We replaced the term.

Comment 4

These limitations are thoroughly discussed and analyzed in Section 5 (Discussion). Section 6 (Limitations of the research) is likewise clear and effective in its discussion of the unanticipated obstacles that high-technology teaching tools encounter in the real world. Section 7 (Conclusions) is commendably clear and concise, although the final paragraph of this article fails to articulate a clear take-away message, offering the reader instead a long list of desirable characteristics for future technology. What's actually needed in this last paragraph is a concise statement of actionable outcomes. What must future technology designers do to address the real-world problems identified in this study?

Answer 4

The conclusion has been revised to highlight the need for designing adaptable solutions, the quest for regenerative practices, and the relevance of a holistic approach, as suggestions for the designers.

Comment 5

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Long and meandering sentences throughout the first 3 sections of this article should be revised to make them more clear and concise.

The argument of this study should be more clearly and effectively conveyed, with more explicit deployment of logical connections between concepts.

The "Conclusions" section should more clearly articulate actionable outcomes.

Avoid using the word "this" as a pronoun referring vaguely to a concept mentioned in the previous sentence (for example, in line 148, and many other instances). "This" works better as an article modifying a noun phrase. Avoid redundant "this, this" in line 54.

Careful proofreading is needed in several instances throughout the article; for example:

Line 58: opening parenthesis ( -- lacks a closing parenthesis ).

Line 213: Incoherent sentence, possibly some words are missing: "prototypes in three different a qualitative research approach that investigates"

Answer 5

Language and style have been revised according to the revisions, and mistakes have been corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is greatly improved in revision. Sections 1, 2, and 3 are greatly improved in coherence, clarity, and accessibility to researchers in related fields. The concluding section is also improved in clarity, and in providing actionable recommendations. This article synthesizes information across a broad range of disciplines and reaches highly original findings. It makes a substantial contribution to its field.

The authors have done an impressive job of revising this article. I recommend publication in its present form.