Exploring Barriers and Needs: Secondary Teachers’ Perspectives on Climate Change Education Within an International Environmental Campus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a focus group conducted with 16 secondary school teachers who participated in a training seminar as part of an international climate change education project. It is presented in a clear and organized format. The purpose of the article is explicitly stated. The methodology is transparent and allows for replication. The results support the discussion. Still, I offer a few suggestions to strengthen the content:

• The introduction offers general information that has been presented in many other articles; therefore, I suggest focusing on current case studies worldwide that could serve as a foundation for your focus group.
• Avoid statements such as “…However, few studies have explored their concerns, demands, and proposals regarding climate action. “It can be hard to prove without data.
• If possible, update citations.
• The main limitation of the study is its limited generalizability. Despite this, the paper holds academic value; therefore, I recommend discussing this issue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the time and care you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper.

We have carefully addressed all of your observations and revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached document, where the corresponding changes are clearly indicated.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and contribute to strengthening the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for supporting the improvement of our work.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. When writing the Abstract, it is not necessary to strictly separate the background, methods, and results; however, the narrative must be clear and logically flowed.
2. Given that the sample is primarily from Ibero-America and recruited within the context of a specific environmental education summer camp, it is suggested that the title be revised to more specifically reflect the research background or core findings.
3. The Results section in the Abstract is too generic as factors like time constraints and lack of training are consensus points in almost all educational literature and fail to reflect the unique research findings of this paper.
4. The Abstract only mentions qualitative analysis and fails to mention mixed-methods or network analysis, which are heavily emphasized in the text as key methodological contributions.
5. The background setup in the Introduction is lengthy and off-topic. Paragraphs 1 through 3 spend a large amount of space reviewing COP and the history of climate science. As an education paper, this background is common knowledge for readers; instead, it should quickly cut to the status and challenges of CCE.
6. The author claims that teachers are studied three times less frequently than students, which is merely a quantitative gap. The paper needs to further argue why studying this group of high-participation, high-motivation teachers is theoretically important.
7. The text refers to the participants as part of an International project, but the sample shows 12 are from Ibero-America with only 1 Polish and 1 Portuguese teacher, making the label International potentially misleading.
8. The final valid sample is only 14 people. The article attempts to use percentages to describe the data for these 14 people, which is statistically meaningless.
9. The authors overemphasize the use of MAXQDA software, even describing it in a detailed standalone paragraph. Software is just a tool, not a method. More emphasis should be placed on how coding was conducted and what the specific algorithm or logic of the network analysis is.
10. Table 1 shows the conversion from García-Vinuesa’s original categories to the new dimensions in this paper. What is the theoretical basis for this conversion?
11. Table 2 and Figure 1 present completely repetitive information, and the use of precise percentages for such a small dataset is misleading; therefore, one of these visual aids should be deleted.
12. When analyzing dimensions like Structural Support, many paragraphs merely repeat the content of the quotes without digging into the sociological or pedagogical meanings behind them.
13. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the co-occurrence network of dimensions, which is a highlight of the article. However, the text's explanation of the figures is very superficial. The authors need to explain in depth why Personal Aspects is isolated and why Curriculum and Educational Potential are closely connected regarding teacher cognition.
14. The article shows Personal Aspects has weak connections with other dimensions in the network graph, but emphasizes its importance, especially generational guilt, in the conclusion. The tension between this data result and the qualitative conclusion is not fully discussed.
15. The authors compare the results with U.S. studies, pointing out the lack of political controversy in this study. This is likely caused by sample bias rather than cultural difference, as the respondents are teachers who voluntarily participated in a climate summer camp.
16. The article ends with a quote, which is not recommended. The Conclusion section should summarize the whole study, reiterate the core contributions, and point out future research directions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the time and care you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper.

We have carefully addressed all of your observations and revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached document, where the corresponding changes are clearly indicated.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and contribute to strengthening the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for supporting the improvement of our work.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors on their article. The focus on highly motivated teachers and the use of co-occurrence maps is interesting, but the topic (teachers' perceptions of climate change) has been widely covered; the novelty is incremental. It contributes to the discussion on barriers and potentialities, although the sample is small and specific; the impact depends on improving the method/visualization. There are errors in Table 2, generic figure captions, missing parameters, and methodological details. There is a lack of inter-coder reliability, convenience bias, poor triangulation, and justification of mixed analysis (counts vs. interpretation). It is of interest to readers of environmental education/ESD; less appealing to the general Sustainability audience without strengthening methods/visualization. It requires substantive revisions before it can be published.

Below are some suggestions for improvement in response to the issues evaluated:

We propose revising the abstract, adding basic metrics (82 turns; 136 coded segments), clarifying the criteria for co-occurrence and the main clusters found, and stating the limitation of intentional sampling on an international campus. In the keywords, include standardized MDPI/ESD terms (Education for Sustainable Development, Climate Change Education, teacher professional development).

 

State of the art.

The introduction provides a good context for the climate emergency and the evolution of Environmental Education/ESD. Still, it relies on secondary references or theses and documents that have not been peer-reviewed for key statements, for example, when it states that 2024 was the warmest year on record or that seven of the nine planetary boundaries have been exceeded. It is proposed to replace/add primary and consensus sources for these statements. Find sources that support these statements or modify the figure—aren't there six agreed-upon planetary boundaries?

           

Research design

A general objective and qualitative design with a non-directive focus group (16 teachers; 14 with interventions) and content analysis assisted by MAXQDA, with frequency counts and network maps, are declared. Missing: i) explicit research questions; ii) justification of the sample and table of participants; iii) guide/stimuli used in the focus group; iv) procedure for translating quotes (some appear to be translated); v) software version; vi) inter-coder reliability metric (consensus is chosen but without any indicator); vii) details of how the maps were constructed (parameters, thresholds).

The design is exploratory, qualitative, based on a non-directive focus group with intentional sampling of teachers "already committed" to an international campus. It is valid for generating hypotheses and a deep understanding. Still, validity and transferability should be strengthened by describing the selection criteria, participant characteristics (discipline, years of experience, previous training), potential convenience biases, and the dual role of the moderator/author. It is recommended to add a second round, with an additional focus group of teachers less familiar with the topic, or semi-structured interviews for triangulation.

           

Some suggestions for the method:

- Critical details are missing: recruitment procedure, focus group language(s), and quote translation process (several participants are from ES/MX/BR/PL/PT; quotes appear in English without details of translation/validation).  

- Coding is described as "consensus between two coders" without reliability metrics (e.g., Cohen's κ); justify or include the metrics and procedure for resolving discrepancies.  

- MAXQDA/MAX Maps is used, but the models and parameters are not explained (e.g., criteria for "co-occurrence" and edge thickness). Add a methodological note (One-Code / Code Co-occurrence Model, etc.).  

- Ethics: BERA 2018 is invoked, and it is stated that "no formal approval was sought." Incorporate a more robust justification (risk, anonymity, data storage) and alignment with BERA (consent, right to withdraw).

 

In the results.

Quantitative error: Table 2 shows clearly incorrect percentages (several rows "20%," "Total 136 – 20%"). You must recalculate frequencies/percentages and check consistency with the Figures.  Check that figures have operational captions and parameters; for example, Figure 1 has a generic caption ("This is a figure"). 

It is recommended to introduce subsections by dimension (Structural Support, Educational Potential, etc.) with representative citations and clear summaries, and to explain precisely how each visualization was obtained (MAX Maps model).

           

Consistency of argument.

In the discussion, qualify conclusions in light of the sample profile (highly committed teachers): explain why socio-political controversy or certain emotions documented in other contexts do not emerge, and relate this to comparative literature. Make the limitations explicit: convenience sampling, a single session (64 minutes), absence of external triangulation and reliability metrics (if not incorporated). And raise implications that connect with ESD 2030. 

 

Conclusions

Several inferences (e.g., "absence of emotions such as hopelessness," "absence of sociopolitical controversy") seem to depend on the very specific profile of the sample (highly motivated teachers). Summarize which dimensions interact most strongly and which policies can address them. 

 

References.

References are not appropriate or relevant. For statements on climate and planetary boundaries, it is essential to prioritize primary sources (IPCC AR6, WMO 2024) and the peer-reviewed paper on "planetary boundaries" (Richardson et al., 2023). In addition, include the ESD Roadmap 2020 (UNESCO) to align with the ESD 2030 framework.

 

Figures and tables.

In Table 2, correct percentages and format; add a note on denominators and the possibility of multiple codes per turn.

In Figures 1–3, replace generic captions, avoid overlapping words with other figures, incorporate scales/legends and line thickness criteria (e.g., number of co-occurrences).

           

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

Professional linguistic review for cohesion, conciseness, and consistent terminology; clearly mark translations of quotations, distinguishing between literal and paraphrased translations. Replace long constructions with more concise sentences, standardize terminology (Education for Sustainable Development, Climate Change Education), and revise calques ("run us over," "It dies there") for more natural translations of quotations.

"It is present and what is absent..." to "What is included—and what is omitted—also characterizes each strand of Environmental Education."

Standardize terminology (Education for Sustainable Development, Climate Change Education, co-occurrence networks), and review verb tenses.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the time and care you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper.

We have carefully addressed all of your observations and revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached document, where the corresponding changes are clearly indicated.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and contribute to strengthening the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for supporting the improvement of our work.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments

1) The manuscript states a general aim, but it would read more coherently if you set out a small number of explicit research questions (e.g., 2–4). At the moment the reader has to infer the guiding questions from the flow of the Results. Clear RQs would also help you organise the Results/Discussion and make the contribution easier to judge.

2) Please spell out the recruitment pathway in plain terms: who approached the teachers, how they were invited, and what (if any) inclusion criteria were applied. A brief “participant flow” (approached/declined/participated) would strengthen transparency. Given the study is embedded in a specific institutional setting, it is also important to address voluntariness and whether any perceived hierarchy could have influenced participation.

3) The ethics section needs to be more complete. Please name the approving body/committee (or provide a formal statement explaining why approval was not required), and describe the consent process clearly. Because this is a focus group, confidentiality has practical limits; it would be good to state what ground rules were agreed and how you managed that risk. A short data-governance paragraph is also needed (recording, secure storage, access, retention, and how you anonymised quotations), ideally aligned with GDPR expectations.

4) Even if the session was “non-directive”, readers still need enough detail to assess rigour and to replicate the approach. Please report core procedural elements (duration, setting, broad prompts/topics used to start and sustain discussion). You should also justify why a single focus group is adequate for your stated aims—whether you frame this as an exploratory/pilot study, or whether you make a more specific claim about thematic adequacy/sufficiency.

5) The seven-dimension framework is central to the manuscript, but it is not yet operationalised clearly enough for readers to follow. I recommend adding a concise codebook table (definitions for each dimension plus one illustrative quote). If the framework was adapted from the cited source, please make the adaptation explicit: what changed, what was retained, and why those decisions fit your data and context.

6) You indicate coder consensus but provide limited detail on how this was reached. Please describe the coding workflow: whether coding was independent first, how disagreements were handled, how many rounds of refinement occurred, and what documentation was kept (audit trail). If you choose not to report reliability indices, that can be defensible in qualitative work—provided you strengthen credibility through transparent procedure and reflexivity.

7) The network/co-occurrence outputs are potentially useful, but at present they are difficult to interpret and impossible to reproduce from the description. Please report the exact settings used in MAXQDA: the unit of analysis, the definition of “co-occurrence/intersection”, the proximity window (if relevant), any thresholds for including nodes/links, and whether values were normalised. Also explain, in one or two sentences, what link weight and node size mean in substantive terms.

8) The frequency/percentage summaries require a careful audit. Tables should have internally consistent percentages and totals, and the narrative interpretation should match the corrected numbers. Given the manuscript uses these summaries to support key claims, clarity here is essential. Please also ensure every figure/table can be understood from its caption without forcing the reader back into Methods.

9) Because this is a single-site exploratory focus group, the Discussion should be more restrained when moving from findings to broader claims about “teachers” in general. I suggest adding a short paragraph explicitly addressing transferability: what contextual features are likely to matter, how self-selection may shape the results, and what readers can reasonably take forward to other settings.

10) Several interpretive points are interesting, but the manuscript would be stronger if each major claim is anchored either in direct qualitative evidence (short quotations or clearly stated themes) or in clearly relevant literature. The conclusions should be proportionate to the design and framed as exploratory where appropriate.

11) The reference base is generally relevant, but please double-check bibliographic accuracy and ensure that any contextual statements that could be contested are anchored in authoritative sources. This is especially important where you rely on background claims to motivate the study’s urgency or novelty.

Minor comments

- Please avoid wording that suggests quantitative inference (e.g., “statistical validation”) unless you genuinely used and reported such procedures. Qualitative-appropriate terms will make the methodological stance clearer.

- Consider opening each Results subsection with a brief sentence stating what dimension/RQ it addresses; it will help readers navigate the framework.

- In places where interpretation carries the argument, one or two additional short quotations would improve the evidential chain without overloading the text.

- Expand captions slightly to define key terms and computation rules (particularly for co-occurrence/proximity outputs).

- Ensure consistent terminology across sections for the main constructs (barriers/enablers/dimensions), and only introduce new labels when necessary and explained.

- A careful English edit would improve precision, especially in the Methods and Discussion, where small phrasing choices can change the implied strength of claims.

- Limitations: It would help to explicitly note focus-group confidentiality limits and possible social desirability/self-selection effects, alongside any steps taken to reduce them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the time and care you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper.

We have carefully addressed all of your observations and revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached document, where the corresponding changes are clearly indicated.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and contribute to strengthening the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for supporting the improvement of our work.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for inviting this high-quality research. The topic addressed is important and deserves worldwide attention.

Please revise the manuscript title, as it appears too simple and not sufficiently attractive.

The abstract reads more like an introduction and does not focus on the main themes of the authors’ research. Please revise it to clearly state the research question and the research gap. In addition, the abstract should be reduced to around 160 words, as it is currently much longer.

The introduction is well-written; however, it does not clearly identify the research gap or the primary research question, which should be addressed. In addition, the authors have not included a descriptive outline of each section at the end of the introduction. Please include this information.

Authors need to add a literature review.

Please revise the methodology section. It is not clearly presented and needs to be more complete. Add explicit statements about the data sources, how the data were used, and clearly specify the time period covered (from which year to which year).

Discussion and conclusion should be separate

Pleas also write the future research directions with limitation should be clearly articulated and expanded to around 200 words.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the time and care you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper.

We have carefully addressed all of your observations and revised the manuscript accordingly. A detailed, point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached document, where the corresponding changes are clearly indicated.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and contribute to strengthening the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for supporting the improvement of our work.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant revisions based on the comments. The revised version has basically addressed all my concerns.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of our manuscript. Their insightful comments in the previous round were invaluable in strengthening the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and expertise invested in the review process. We are thankful for the reviewer’s positive second-round assessment and their confirmation that the manuscript no longer requires further revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for modifying the comments I made in the first review. I don't have anything else to add, except to authorize the publication of this article. I am glad to know that my comments have helped to improve the article.

Best regards

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of our manuscript. Their insightful comments in the previous round were invaluable in strengthening the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and expertise invested in the review process. We are thankful for the reviewer’s positive second-round assessment and their confirmation that the manuscript no longer requires further revisions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript and the detailed response letter. The paper is clearer overall, and the operationalisation of the seven dimensions has improved.

To further improve methodological accuracy and prevent over-interpretation, please address the following points. The quoted excerpts below are taken directly from your revised manuscript.

In the Abstract, you state: “Using a mixed-methods design, the study draws on quantitative descriptive analyses …” (p.1, l.16–17). Please specify what is meant by “quantitative descriptive analyses” (for example, code frequencies or co-occurrence counts from qualitative data), or rephrase to avoid implying a separate quantitative study.

In your text, you write: “it aims to provide new evidence on how this key group navigates the complex educational challenges …” (p.3, l.125–126). Given the exploratory, qualitative focus and purposive recruitment of a highly motivated group, I suggest softening this language to better reflect the scope and sample characteristics. Instead, consider phrasing it as: "offers exploratory insights into how this key group navigates the complex educational challenges," or "provides context-rich evidence from a highly engaged group." This will ensure the language appropriately matches the study's sample and focus.

Early in the Introduction, you state: “more frequent extreme weather events and more severe impacts …” (p.2, l.56–58). As this is a factual claim, please either support it with an authoritative citation (such as the IPCC's latest Synthesis Report) or rephrase it more cautiously to reflect current scientific consensus on climate change.

You state: “constitutes a personal aspect not identified in the reviewed literature …” (p.21, l.851–852). Within the scope of the literature reviewed for this study, please qualify this statement (for example, 'not identified in the literature reviewed for this study' or 'to the best of our knowledge') and, if possible, link it directly to the scope of your review.

In the Conclusion, you write: “motivated teachers may constitute a critical leverage point for advancing meaningful climate change education” (p.22, l.889–890). This frames the idea as a promising implication drawn from this group while respecting the study's evidence boundaries. Including relevant literature, such as resources on leverage points or teacher change agents, could further support this assertion.

You conclude: “Supporting these educators requires not only improved training opportunities but also institutional conditions …” (p.22, l.891–892). Please present this as an implication (for example, “may require” or “suggests the need for”) and, if possible, link it more directly to the dimensions or themes and supporting quotations from the Findings. If this is intended as a policy recommendation, consider adding relevant references.

You write: “examining the experiences of particularly engaged teachers may help anticipate barriers that could become even more pronounced among less committed educators” (p.22, l.882–883). While this is a reasonable hypothesis, it is speculative. Please clearly identify it as such, for example, as a proposition for future research.

Overall, these suggestions focus on wording and positioning to ensure claims remain proportionate to the study’s design and evidence. Addressing them will strengthen the manuscript’s rigour and credibility. As you proceed with revisions, it is important to remember the impressive progress made in this manuscript. Here is a brief action list to guide the next steps in the revision process: 1) Clarify quantitative descriptive analyses in the Abstract, 2) Adjust exploratory language for sample characteristics, 3) Support factual claims with citations, and 4) Clearly identify speculative hypotheses. These actions will further enhance the manuscript, bringing it closer to publication standards.

A brief final round is required to address minor editorial and placeholder issues (e.g., “https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx”, “e-mail@e-mail.com”, “Since de 1960s…”, “Figure 1 illustrates aTable 2.”). 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions provided. We have addressed all the minor comments and believe that these revisions have helped to further improve the clarity and quality of the paper. A detailed, point-by-point response outlining how each comment was considered and incorporated is provided in the attached document. We appreciate the reviewer’s time and valuable contribution to strengthening this work

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thorough revision; I appreciate your hard work. I believe the paper can be accepted, and I have no further major suggestions.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of our manuscript. Their insightful comments in the previous round were invaluable in strengthening the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and expertise invested in the review process. We are thankful for the reviewer’s positive second-round assessment and their confirmation that the manuscript no longer requires further revisions.