Pre-Service Teacher Action Competence in Education for Sustainable Development: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is relevant, contextualized, and theoretically supported. However, concepts like PKC, introduced by Lee Shulman, are associated with other authors without a single reference to Shulman. The objective is clear, and its relevance is well justified. The procedures are clearly described and explained. The results are presented and quite well discussed against the literature reviewed. However, there are some parts where references are missing (e.g., lines 636 to 656).

The Conclusions section should start by briefly presenting the conclusions (relating them explicitly to the objectives of the research/paper. Does this paper have any implications for teacher education? This is a question worth mentioning.

Author Response

Comments 1: However, concepts like PKC, introduced by Lee Shulman, are associated with other authors without a single reference to Shulman.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The mention of Shulman does indeed make the section more complete. A reference to his work has been added. This change can be found here: p. 2, l. 51-56.

Comments 2: However, there are some parts where references are missing (e.g., lines 636 to 656).

Response 2: Agree. I have added sources in the relevant sections, see p. 21, l. 656/666. Comments 3: The Conclusions section should start by briefly presenting the conclusions (relating them explicitly to the objectives of the research/paper. Does this paper have any implications for teacher education? This is a question worth mentioning. Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out, I recognize this weakness in the text. I have revised the entire conclusion again and in particular added implications for practice. See p. 25, l. 851-877.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper systematically explores the competencies required for pre-service teachers to effectively engage in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). It highlights the fragmented nature of existing research, identifies trends and gaps, and suggests directions for future work. Indeed, the review presents a well-defined scope, systematically exploring ESD competencies in pre-service teacher education. The identification of key trends and gaps is crucial for guiding future research. However, the introduction could benefit from a more explicit definition of "action competence". A clearer articulation of how this concept interrelates with knowledge and motivational aspects would enhance readers' understanding.

The methodology is well-structured and follows PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The detailed explanation of the search process, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data analysis adds to the study's transparency.

Minor issues

Please add some limitations about publication bias

The abstract is concise but could highlight the specific research questions more clearly

The paper could strengthen its contribution by more explicitly discussing the implications of its findings for teacher training programs. For instance, how can teacher educators better integrate action competence into their curricula?

Author Response

Comments 1: However, the introduction could benefit from a more explicit definition of "action competence". A clearer articulation of how this concept interrelates with knowledge and motivational aspects would enhance readers' understanding.

Response 1: Thank you very much for the valid comment. I have added a short section explaining action competence. See p. 1-2, l. 40-45.

Comments 2: Please add some limitations about publication bias.

Response 2: Agree. Publication bias was added on p. 20, l. 620-625.

Comments 3: The abstract is concise but could highlight the specific research questions more clearly. The paper could strengthen its contribution by more explicitly discussing the implications of its findings for teacher training programs. For instance, how can teacher educators better integrate action competence into their curricula?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out, I recognize this weakness in the text. I have revised the entire conclusion again and in particular added implications for practice. See p. 25, l. 851-877.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3562008) concerns the review of literature on the analysis of teachers’ competences in the effective implementation of education for sustainable development in the didactic practice of future teachers. Overall, the manuscript is quite logically arranged, but knowledge about sustainable development is important in every area of ​​life, not only in the work of a teacher. The manuscript contains no significant new content, but is a review work, systematizing certain topics. There are a few thematic areas that require further elaboration.   

Detailed comments:

1. Title – is the statement “: Scoping Review” necessary?
2.  P.1 – „This literature study systematically analyzes the research landscape on ESD competences by reviewing empirical studies published between 2007 and 2024” – the manuscript contains data up to May 2024, please update it to cover the entire year 2024.
3. When citing the literature collectively e.g. “[2-5]”, please cite it chronologically
   – please apply this comment to the entire manuscript.
4. P.4, paragraphs from lines 145-154 – please add e.g. a bullet point.
5. It would be interesting to compile data on the subjects in which Education for Sustainable Development can be most often implemented – a deeper discussion of the topic (P.22) is recommended.
6. P.14, Figure 5. – please add numbering a), b) in the Figures and in the Figure description.
7. P.15 „Motivation Benifits” – what, to what extent?
8. P.19, lines 574-577 – please support the thesis about the language barrier with appropriate bibliographic references or modify the indicated text.
9. P.22, line 725, n=… – please complete.
10. Please check the “Abbreviations” and limit to abbreviations that appear frequently in the text, e.g. the abbreviation BNE – it does not appear in the manuscript text in capital letters, additionally, it appears only once.

After completing the above mentioned corrections this work will be more readable. 

Author Response

Comments 1: Title – is the statement “: Scoping Review” necessary?

Response 1: According to the MDPI guidelines, the term “Review” is mandatory; there are no further specifications. The specification “Scoping Review” was therefore retained in the title.

Comments 2: P.1 – „This literature study systematically analyzes the research landscape on ESD competences by reviewing empirical studies published between 2007 and 2024” – the manuscript contains data up to May 2024, please update it to cover the entire year 2024.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. Since the literature search was completed in May 2024 and a subsequent search would involve too much effort, “May 2024” was added to the abstract to avoid confusion. See l. 15.

Comments 3: When citing the literature collectively e.g. “[2-5]”, please cite it chronologically – please apply this comment to the entire manuscript.

Response 3: According to the MDPI guidelines, there are no rules for the order of sources within collective references. The order in the manuscript was therefore based on the relevance of the sources.

Comments 4: P.4, paragraphs from lines 145-154 – please add e.g. a bullet point.

Response 4: Agree. Bulletpoints have been added, see p. 5, l. 153-165.

Comments 5: It would be interesting to compile data on the subjects in which Education for Sustainable Development can be most often implemented – a deeper discussion of the topic (P.22) is recommended.

Response 5: This is indeed an exciting perspective and could be explored further. However, as this should not be the focus of the review, only a short section has been added so that this dimension is at least not neglected. See. p. 22, l. 711-717.

Comments 6: P.14, Figure 5. – please add numbering a), b) in the Figures and in the Figure description.

Response 6: Agree. Numbers have been added, see p. 14, l. 490-491.

Comments 7: P.15 „Motivation Benifits” – what, to what extent?

Response 7: Unfortunately, I cannot understand the comment, as the term motivation benefits does not appear in the manuscript.

Comments 8: P.19, lines 574-577 – please support the thesis about the language barrier with appropriate bibliographic references or modify the indicated text.

Response 8: Many thanks for pointing this out. The section has been slightly amended and the relevant sources added. P. 19, l. 581-586.

Comments 9: P.22, line 725, n=… – please complete.

Response 9: Thank you for your attention to detail. The number has been added. P. 23, l. 743.

Comments 10: Please check the “Abbreviations” and limit to abbreviations that appear frequently in the text, e.g. the abbreviation BNE – it does not appear in the manuscript text in capital letters, additionally, it appears only once.

Response 10: Thank you for this valuable hint, the abbreviation is indeed not necessary and has been removed. P. 26, l. 892.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Pre-service Teacher Action Competence in Education for Sustainable Development: A Scoping Review” offers a timely and well-organized contribution to the literature on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The topic is of high relevance, particularly given the increasing emphasis on the development of action competence among future educators.

One of the main strengths of the manuscript lies in its conceptual clarity. The authors provide a well-articulated and precise theoretical framework that not only demonstrates a deep understanding of the field but also underpins the methodological choices throughout the review. This clarity is reflected in the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies, the analytical approach adopted, and the structure of the discussion.

The scoping review itself is conducted in a systematic and rigorous manner. The selected studies are appropriately categorized and analyzed with regard to both their formal characteristics (e.g., geographical and temporal distribution) and their research design, methodological frameworks, and key findings. This dual-level analysis allows the reader to obtain a comprehensive overview of the field and to identify both patterns and gaps in the existing literature.

The discussion section is extensive and reflective, offering substantive insights into the state of research on pre-service teacher action competence in ESD. The interpretation of findings is generally well-founded and demonstrates critical engagement with the reviewed material.

Nevertheless, there is an omission that should be addressed prior to publication. On page 22, line 725, the notation “n= ” is left incomplete. 

In conclusion, this is a valuable and well-executed contribution that merits publication. I strongly encourage the authors to correct the noted issue to ensure consistency and completeness in their presentation.

Author Response

Comments 1: Nevertheless, there is an omission that should be addressed prior to publication. On page 22, line 725, the notation “n= ” is left incomplete.

Response 1: Thank you for your attention to detail. The number has been added. P. 23, l. 743.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I accept the Authors' explanations. I have no other comments.