Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting, well-executed study that contributes to the field of education for sustainability. It presents a clear focus, coherent structure, and reflective perspective that allow for an interesting insight into how educators integrate sustainability into their teaching while advancing their own professional development.

The methodology section could be strengthened by including a more detailed justification for the selection of institutions, explaining not only their commitment to sustainability, but also institutional sustainability strategies. It would also be important to specify the total number of courses or course iterations analyzed, as this information broadens the scope and credibility of the study. Furthermore, clarifying whether there was a purpose behind the institutional differences would make the research design more explicit.

The criteria for selecting participating faculty should also be detailed, indicating their experience and teaching background. Furthermore, it should be clarified whether the students' work was subjected to qualitative coding or whether it was mainly used to illustrate and contextualize the faculty's reflections. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The methodology section could be strengthened by including a more detailed justification for the selection of institutions, explaining not only their commitment to sustainability, but also institutional sustainability strategies. 

Response 1: We have revised our paper accordingly. The second paragraph in Section 4: Methodology, page 6, includes institutional sustainability strategies and rationale for contrasting contexts as you suggested. 

Comment 2: It would also be important to specify the total number of courses or course iterations analyzed, as this information broadens the scope and credibility of the study. 

Response 2: We have added the number of courses, 3 AUS, 3 NUQ in sub-section 4.1: Case Selection, page 7.

Comment 3: Furthermore, clarifying whether there was a purpose behind the institutional differences would make the research design more explicit.

Response 3: This has been addressed in the third paragraph in Section 4: Methodology, page 6.

Comment 4: The criteria for selecting participating faculty should also be detailed, indicating their experience and teaching background. 

Response 4: The first paragraph in sub-section 4.2: Participants, page 7, explains that all authors were instructors, experienced, and selected for their engagement with the CoDesignS framework. 

Comment 5: Furthermore, it should be clarified whether the students' work was subjected to qualitative coding or whether it was mainly used to illustrate and contextualize the faculty's reflections.

Response 5: The last paragraph in sub-section 4.3: Data Collection, page 8, explains that students’ work was illustrative only and no coding or analysis was done.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-structured and timely examination of how sustainability integration in higher education can act as a catalyst for faculty professional growth.

1. Major Comments

1.1. Methodological Detail Requires Strengthening

The overall methodological approach is appropriate, yet the description remains largely descriptive and could be more rigorous.

• Clarify the rationale for including only two instructors and discuss implications for credibility and transferability.
• Expand the explanation of thematic analysis: provide examples of initial codes, themes, and the analytic process.

1.2. Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

Both authors serve as instructors and researchers, which can yield rich insights but also raises questions about subjectivity.

• Include a brief positionality statement explaining the authors’ perspectives on sustainability and teaching.

1.3. Limited Integration Between Theory and Findings

The manuscript introduces robust theoretical frameworks (transformative pedagogies, sustainability competencies), but the link to empirical findings could be more analytical.

• Deepen discussion of how the data confirm, complicate, or challenge existing theory.
• Include more critical reflection on tensions or contradictions encountered in practice.

1.5. Organization

• Improve transitions between subsections in the Literature Review.
• Consider repositioning Figure 1 closer to its narrative introduction

2. Limitations

• Small sample of instructors (N=2).
• Researcher-participant overlap may introduce bias.
• Limited direct evidence of student competency development.
• Context-specific insights limit generalizability

Author Response

Comment 1:

1.1. Methodological Detail Requires Strengthening

1. Clarify the rationale for including only two instructors and discuss implications for credibility and transferability.
2. Expand the explanation of thematic analysis: provide examples of initial codes, themes, and the analytic process.

Response 1: 

1. We have now clearly justified the inclusion of two instructors in the study, explaining that the research was conducted as part of a longitudinal intervention study involving selected faculty who had adopted the CoDesignS ESD framework in their courses. We also discussed the implications for credibility and transferability, including how their shared training and use of the same framework support analytical generalization within the scope of qualitative research. See sub-section 4.2: Participants, page 7.
2. We have also expanded the description of our thematic analysis process. Examples of initial codes and final themes have been included in the revised sub-section 4.4: Data Analysis, page 9, to better illustrate the analytic process.

Comment 2: Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity: Both authors serve as instructors and researchers, which can yield rich insights but also raises questions about subjectivity. Include a brief positionality statement explaining the authors’ perspectives on sustainability and teaching.

Response 2: We have added a new paragraph at the end of sub-section 4.2: Participants, page 7, to address this concern.  

Comment 3: Limited Integration Between Theory and Findings: The manuscript introduces robust theoretical frameworks (transformative pedagogies, sustainability competencies), but the link to empirical findings could be more analytical. Deepen discussion of how the data confirm, complicate, or challenge existing theory. Include more critical reflection on tensions or contradictions encountered in practice.

Response 3: We have added a new paragraph at the end of Section 6: Findings and Discussion, page 13, that carefully addressed your feedback.

Comment 4:

• Improve transitions between subsections in the Literature Review.
• Consider repositioning Figure 1 closer to its narrative introduction
• Limitations:
  • Small sample of instructors (N=2).
  • Researcher-participant overlap may introduce bias.
  • Limited direct evidence of student competency development.
  • Context-specific insights limit generalizability 

Response 4: 

• We have inserted brief bridging sentences at the end of each sub-section in the literature review section to guide the reader smoothly from one theme to the next.
• Figure 1 is positioned right after it was mentioned in the Conceptual Framework section, Section 3, page 5.
• Limitations: We have added sub-section 6.4: Limitations, page 14, to address all of your important concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments are in the uploaded document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Since the instructors were also researchers, it should be better explained how bias was mitigated (beyond reflexivity) and how credibility was ensured.

Feedback 1: We have now revised the manuscript to more clearly explain the strategies we employed to mitigate bias and enhance the credibility of our findings. Please refer to the last paragraph in sub-section 4.2: Participants, page 7.

Comment 2: There are also gaps in explaining methodological and didactic procedures and processes, such as the criteria and justification for methodological decisions.

Feedback 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised the methodology section to clarify our rationale for adopting a qualitative interpretivist approach and thematic analysis. We explain why this method was particularly suitable for exploring instructors’ reflections and how it aligns with the exploratory and interpretive aims of our study. We have also elaborated on our choice of data sources and outlined how each contributes to triangulation and credibility. These additions help strengthen the transparency and rigor of our methodological decisions. Please refer to Section 4: Methodology, page 6.

Comment 3: A clearer explanation of how the findings advance or challenge current understandings of faculty development in sustainability education would also be desirable. 

Response 3: 

We have clarified how the study’s findings contribute to advancing current understandings of faculty development in sustainability education in two key sections of the revised manuscript.

• Sub-section 4.5 (Trustworthiness), page 9:

We expanded this subsection to explain how the study contributes conceptually to the literature on faculty development by demonstrating how sustainability-oriented curriculum redesign functions as an iterative process of educator learning and identity transformation.

• Section 6.1 (Findings – Aligning Course Design with Sustainability Competencies), page 13:

We integrated further analytical discussion linking the empirical findings to existing frameworks of faculty development and sustainability education. 

Comment 4: Although the paper aims to foreground educator development, the manuscript references student outputs without analysing them in meaningful depth. 

Response 4: 

The manuscript has been revised to clarify the role of student outputs in the analysis.

In sub-section 4.3: Data Collection (page 8, last paragraph), we specify that student work was not subjected to formal qualitative coding but used illustratively to contextualize and support instructors’ reflections on pedagogical design and engagement with sustainability.

We also added another sentence in sub-section 4.4 (Last sentence in the first paragraph, page 8) to clearly indicate this fact.

Comment 5: More detailed implications for broader ESD practice beyond the two institutions studied would also be preferable.

Response 5: We have added a new paragraph at the end of the conclusion section, page 15, to address this comment.

Comment 6: The bibliography adequately covers the relevant literature, but some citations appear incomplete, lacking full bibliographic detail or containing misspellings (lines 553, 554, 560).

Response 6: 

The first one (lines 553 and 554) was due to a formatting error. Everything is fixed now. See below

Hamadi, M., Imtinan, U., & Namisango, F. (2024). Sustainability education in information systems’ curricula: A conceptual re-search framework. Education and Information Technologies, 29(12), 14769-14787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12409-w

McCowan, T. (2023). The climate crisis as a driver for pedagogical renewal in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(5), 933-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2197113

The other reference, line 560, has been removed as it has not been used as a reference.