Modeling the Effects of Teacher Resilience and Self-Efficacy on Prosocialness: Implications for Sustainable Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their constructive feedback. Below, we provide detailed responses to each comment, indicating how we have addressed the suggestions in the revised manuscript. In response to another reviewer (Reviewer 2), we made several modifications to improve the clarity and alignment of the manuscript with the study’s aims. We revised the manuscript title to better reflect the study’s analytical model and hypotheses. The new title, “Modeling the effects of teacher resilience and self-efficacy on prosocialness: Implications for sustainable education”, incorporates the core constructs and emphasizes the predictive structure tested. We also revised the introduction and conclusion to make the objective explicit. The introduction now includes a clear theoretical justification and final paragraph presenting H1 and H2. The conclusion restates the tested hypotheses and summarizes findings accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is quite important and interesting. The connection between education and sustainable development is quite obvious. However, what exactly the author wants to say is not so obvious. The introduction throws in a lot of different ideas and not all of them are relevant to the issue under consideration.
The title, introduction and conclusion should clearly indicate what exactly the authors want to show with their research. At the moment, the situation looks quite confusing. At the beginning, they talk about "promoting prosociality in schools" - which does not raise any questions, then the authors move on to resilience, which is already somewhat problematic, and no longer applies only to children in school.
Instead of this confusion, we need a clear logic of how teachers' resilience is related to the goals and ideas of education under consideration within the framework of the concept of sustainable development.
Now it turns out that we are talking about teaching children, but studying the properties of teachers, which is methodologically incorrect. And the fact that resilience influences teachers' prosociality is again not related to teaching prosociality.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of the reviewer’s comments and describe how the manuscript was revised accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract or at the end of the introduction, the wording of the study's objective should be revised; it does not coincide in both sections. The study addresses an interesting topic in the Latin American context. The introduction addresses the main topics and uses relevant sources. Furthermore, most sources are current and correspond to the last 5 years. In this section, the wording of the objective should be revised; it does not coincide with that presented in the abstract and in other sections (discussion). In this section, at the end, the working hypothesis is presented; it is more pertinent to define them in the "method" section. The same applies to the research questions. The sample obtained is large and highlights the results presented by the authors. The data analysis method and procedure are correctly presented. The instrument used is sufficiently described and has been used in previous studies. The discussion includes relevant and current references from other similar studies. The references are up-to-date and, for the most part, cite sources of scientific quality.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their positive comments and thoughtful suggestions. Below, we provide our responses and describe how the manuscript was improved in response to their feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article reports on a study to test the relationship between resilience directly and indirectly on prosocial actions and feelings, as well as teacher self-efficacy. The sample consists of a sample of school teachers in Chile (n=1426). Using structural equation modeling, the analysis estimated the extent to which measures of resilience were directly impacting prosocial actions, prosocial feelings, and teacher self-efficacy. It also estimated the indirect effects of teacher self-efficacy on prosocial actions and feelings. The positive relationship between resilience and other factors (prosocial actions/feelings, and teacher self-efficacy) suggests targeting resilience to influence other outcomes in creating an inclusive, collaborative educational environment.

The paper is well written and clear. The suggestion that policies should prioritize enhancing these factors for teachers is logical; however, the authors could provide more specific details on how a professional development program would effectively address these issues. While the analysis outlines the pathways between these indicators, it does not explain why certain individuals exhibit particular levels of resilience. As a result, it remains unclear how to improve those specific indicators.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for their valuable and constructive comments. Below, we provide detailed responses to each suggestion and indicate how the manuscript was revised accordingly.

In response to another reviewer (Reviewer 2), we made several modifications to improve the clarity and alignment of the manuscript with the study’s aims. We revised the manuscript title to better reflect the study’s analytical model and hypotheses. The new title, “Modeling the effects of teacher resilience and self-efficacy on prosocialness: Implications for sustainable education”, incorporates the core constructs and emphasizes the predictive structure tested. We also revised the introduction and conclusion to make the objective explicit. The introduction now includes a clear theoretical justification and final paragraph presenting H1 and H2. The conclusion restates the tested hypotheses and summarizes findings accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See below

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable observation. In response to your comment, we conducted a thorough review of all the cited references and removed those that served only a supplementary or redundant supporting function. As a result, the revised manuscript now includes 79 references—30 fewer than the previous version, which had 109. This adjustment was made to enhance the clarity and accessibility of the text, while retaining the most relevant and essential sources to support the study’s theoretical and methodological foundations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf