Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article  is interesting and is well supported with original findings and a strong research methodology.  It has been well written and supported with data and  discussion  raises some important points and where to from this paper. I wish the author all the best towards its publication and any further research on the broader aims of this topic.

Author Response

The reviewer did not detail any changes.

Thank you very much for you comment. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting, well-developed, and well-written paper (thought-provoking too).  The aim is clear, the title is informative, and the conceptualisation is thoroughly presented. The study methods are valid and reliable, and the results are clearly presented, expanding on previous knowledge. This work not only reflects on a very relevant and timely topic but also gives voice to teachers, who are continuously urged to adapt to new policies and introduction of new methodologies into their classrooms (often) without adequate means to prepare themselves for such challenges.

A couple of suggestions only:

Line 7 – “ESD”: since it’s the first the time being mentioned, consider writing it in full (abbreviated form between brackets);

Page 1, footnote: please check, but I don’t think footnotes or endnotes are allowed.

Line 570 – Reference 35 is the same as ref. 29.

 

Congratulations to the author(s) on a well-achieved work.

Author Response

• Line 7: The requested abbreviation has been developed in the summary.
• Page 1, footnote: Footnotes have been removed.
• Line 570: The duplication of references has been corrected.

Thank you very much for your comments.