Review Reports

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive comments. Please find below our detailed responses to each point raised, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections. We have done our best to address all suggestions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

We strengthened the introduction by expanding the background to better highlight the relationship between storytelling and student development. The research aims are now more clearly articulated in each section, and the PLACES project is described more effectively across its different phases, along with a clearer explanation of the overall objectives of the needs analysis phase. We have added the interpretative linking sentences at the end of key paragraphs to enhance coherence and synthesis in the discussion section. Additionally, in the conclusion, we more explicitly linked the study’s findings to the broader implications for the project.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

Important improvements have been made to this section. We now explicitly describe the study design as quantitative, cross-sectional, and correlational. We have added a dedicated subsection detailing the structure, components, translation procedures, and scales used - including examples of items and psychometric properties. We also formulated three clear research questions aligned with the study aims and reorganized the results accordingly. Hypotheses have been clarified and terminology aligned throughout the manuscript.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

The “Discussion” section has been substantially revised to improve coherence and integration with the empirical evidence. We have expanded the interpretation of key findings, removed redundant statistical details, and connected the results with the broader literature on innovation adoption and teacher development. We also addressed differences between primary and secondary teachers and clarified implications for practice within the PLACES project.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

The results have been reorganized to directly answer the newly specified research questions. Terminology has been harmonized (“perceived organizational climate for innovation”), inconsistencies removed, and additional analyses (e.g., Welch’s t-tests) added to clarify differences between teacher groups. Tables have been corrected (e.g., minimum theoretical scores), and the presentation of findings has been made more linear and readable.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

We have reviewed and expanded the reference list to ensure consistency and completeness, including adding missing citations related to storytelling and innovation climate indices. References are now more evenly integrated into the text, with authors’ interpretations following each paragraph instead of ending sections with citations.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

The “Conclusion” section has been expanded to articulate more clearly the study’s scientific contributions, highlight the interplay between individual and contextual factors influencing teachers’ use of storytelling, and describe practical implications for teacher training and the development of project materials. The section now provides a stronger synthesis aligned with the results and the overall goals of the PLACES project.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The problem based on the link between storytelling method and student development should be emphasized as problem background in the intro section.

Response 1: Thank you for this helpful observation, which allowed us to improve the overall quality of the article. We now explicitly connect the adoption of storytelling by teachers with its potential impact on student development, thereby clarifying the rationale behind the study in “Introduction” section (Introduction, page 2, lines 65-69).

Comments 2: Instead of ending paragraphs with references, the researcher's original ideas evaluating or commenting on each paragraph should be included at the end of the paragraph.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the relevant paragraphs by adding a brief interpretative or evaluative sentence at the end of each paragraph, especially in “Discussion” section (Discussion, page 11-12, lines 366-372; 390-392; 417-428; 448-462).

Comments 3: Aim of the study should be made more striker

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We revised the introduction to make the aims of the study clearer and more prominent. Specifically, we now articulate three distinct research aims that correspond to three guiding research questions, and we explicitly state the related hypotheses concerning teachers’ perceptions of storytelling, the contribution of individual and contextual factors, and the moderating role of the organizational climate for innovation (Introduction, page 3, lines 105-124).

Comments 4: Design or model of the study was explained and the reason why this model was selected should be given.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now clarified the research design by explicitly stating that the study adopts a correlational and cross-sectional approach (Analysis, “2.3 The study and the sample” subsection, page 5, line 186). We also justify the choice of statistical models by linking them more explicitly to the study aims, and testing specific hypotheses (Materials and Methods, “2.4 Analysis”, page 6, line 251-262).

Comments 5: Attitude towards storytelling min score is 2.33, it must be 1.00. Look at again.

Response 5: Thank you for this important and helpful observation, which allowed us to improve the paper. The minimum theoretical score of the Attitude toward Storytelling index is 1.00, as each item ranges from 1 to 5. The 2.33 value reported in the descriptive table is the minimum observed score in the actual sample, reflecting the lowest empirical combination of the three items. We corrected the table with theoretical score (Results, page 7, table 3, line 271).

Comments 6: The study findings are presented in a very confusing manner.. In addition to the purpose of the research, there should be research questions, and the findings should be reorganized to answer the research questions.

Response 6: Thank you for this important observation, which allowed us to improve the overall quality of the article. We substantially revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and coherence of the Results section. First, we explicitly formulated three research questions that directly reflect the three aims of the study, ensuring clear alignment between the purpose of the research and the analytical strategy (Introduction, page 3, lines 107–123). Second, the Results section has been reorganized to address each research question in a structured and sequential manner through three dedicated subsections (“3.1 Teachers’ use and perception regarding storytelling”, “3.2 Facilitators and barriers in the use of storytelling”, “3.3 Organizational school climate and teachers’ self-efficacy”) (Results, pages 7–10, lines 273, 295, 330). We also expanded the descriptive part at the beginning of the Results to provide a clearer overview of the data before presenting the inferential analyses (Results, page 7, line 268). Moreover, we now explicitly refer to the research questions in the Discussion section to strengthen coherence between the aims, findings, and interpretation (Discussion, page 10, lines 357-363).

Comments 7: Discussion was made in a deeper way by removing statistical findings.

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion, which allowed us to improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we remove statistical details that were redundant with the “Results” section and expanded the “Discussion” and “Conclusions” sections by deepening the interpretation of the findings and aligning the results with the overall project aim (Discussion, pages 10-11-12-13; Conclusion, page 18).

Comments 8: The conclusion section should be expanded to include implications and interpretations.

Response 8: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We expanded the “Conclusion” section to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the results and to highlight their practical and theoretical implications. Specifically, now we:

-            Outlined implications for teacher training and school development, showing how the results served for the design of the professional development activities within the PLACES project (see pages 12, line 475-479)

-            Discussed how the findings clarify the interplay between individual factors (attitudes, self-efficacy) and contextual conditions (barriers, organizational climate) in shaping teachers’ use of storytelling, considering differences between primary and secondary teachers (see page 11, lines 479-482)

-            Emphasized the relevance of supporting both psychological and organizational dimensions to sustain the implementation of storytelling and other innovative practices (see pages 11, lines 483-487).

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate the positive assessment of the manuscript’s interest and value for the study of storytelling in education. We have carefully addressed the aspects identified as needing improvement. Below, we provide detailed responses to each specific comment raised by the reviewer, along with a summary of the revisions implemented in the manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

In the revision we strengthened the introduction by expanding the background to better highlight the relationship between storytelling and student development.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

We refined the “Study and Sample” and “Methods” sections to improve clarity and transparency. The exclusion criteria (e.g., Danish teachers) are now explained. We added a dedicated subsection describing the full questionnaire, clarified the variables included in the study, and explained the statistical approach more thoroughly. The research questions are now explicitly stated and more clearly aligned with the aims of the study.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved

The Discussion is substantially expanded to provide a more coherent interpretation of the results. We now explicitly address the differences between primary and secondary teachers, integrate new statistical comparisons, and interpret the findings considering the practical implication of the results. The narrative is more balanced and connects empirical findings to practical implications.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

The Results section now includes additional Welch’s t-tests comparing primary and lower secondary teachers on attitudes, self-efficacy, and barriers. We reorganize the Results section into clearly separated subsections, each explicitly corresponding to one research question.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Must be improved

The Conclusion section is significantly expanded. It now synthesizes how individual and contextual factors jointly shape teachers’ use of storytelling, explains the study’s contribution to existing literature, and outlines the practical implications for designing professional development and school-wide innovation. The conclusions are explicitly linked to the empirical results and to the broader theoretical framework.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Can you clarify why Danish teachers were excluded from the analysis?

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We clarify this point in the manuscript. Danish teachers (N = 9) are excluded because their number was too small compared to the other national groups and would have produced an unbalanced and statistically unreliable comparison. Including such a small subgroup would have introduced instability in the estimates and biased the cross-national analyses. Therefore, to maintain the analytical validity of the sample, we have removed this subgroup from the final dataset. (Materials and Methods, “2.3 The study and the sample” section, page 5, lines 188-195)

Comments 2: Please explain the survey's components in more detail. What other questions were included in the survey?

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We expanded the description of the survey by adding a dedicated section titled “2.2 The Questionnaire,” which now clearly outlines all components of the instrument. In addition to the focal scales considered in the present study (attitudes, self-efficacy, barriers, storytelling use, and organizational climate), this section specifies that the questionnaire also included items assessing teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of the SDGs, their familiarity and experience with storytelling, and their sociodemographic characteristics. (Materials and Methods, “2.2 The questionnaire,” page 4, lines 173-180).

Comments 3: What were the teachers' opinions regarding storytelling? What were the differences in these perceptions between primary and secondary teachers?

Response 3: Thank you for this comment, which allowed us to improve the manuscript. In the revised version, we added a dedicated paragraph addressing teachers’ use and perceptions of storytelling. In this new section, we compare primary and lower secondary teachers, reporting both descriptive results and statistical differences (Results, “3.1 Teachers’ perception regarding storytelling”, page 7, lines 273-294). These findings are further elaborated in the “Discussion” section and are used to inform the design of the project materials, as described in the “Conclusions” section (Discussion, page 10, lines 364-372; Conclusions, page 12, lines 478-482) .

Comments 4: Not many teachers in secondary education use storytelling. Is there an action plan for these teachers to use storytelling? How would this plan be?

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this important question. We added a paragraph in the “Discussion” section highlighting the differences between primary and secondary teachers in terms of self-efficacy, use of storytelling, barriers and organizational factors, and we have provided an interpretation of these findings (Discussion, page 10, lines 364-372). Moreover, in the “Conclusion” section we added a paragraph describing the materials and training implemented during the subsequent phases of the project. We explained how the results guided the development of teachers’ training (Conclusions, page 12, lines 475-482).

Comments 5: Concerning the latter question, do the secondary teachers have less self-efficacy than the primary teachers? Or did the final usage in context influence these results?

Response 5:. Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We have now added independent Welch’s t-tests to more accurately examine the differences between primary and secondary teachers on the key variables. The results show significant differences for attitudes toward storytelling, self-efficacy, and didactic barriers, whereas no significant differences emerged for time barriers and perceived organizational climate for innovation. In the “Discussion” section, we integrated these findings and interpreted them considering the structural and curricular differences between primary and secondary education, which may shape both teachers’ opportunities to implement storytelling and their perceived self-efficacy (Discussion, page 10, line s 366-372).

Comments 6: Please give more context about the project PLACES. What kind of activities do students do? How are these activities evaluated?

Response 6: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have expanded the section “The Project” by providing more contextual information about how the PLACES project was developed and implemented. This study is part of the Needs Analysis phase of the PLACES project, and we now make this explicit in the revised manuscript (Materials and Methods, “2.1 The project”, page 4, lines 155-161).

Additionally, we strengthened the “Conclusions” section by clarifying how the findings of this study informed the development of the teacher training program within the project. We also described the evaluation process, which included a post-implementation focus group aimed at refining the final materials (Conclusions, page 12, line 475-487).

Comments 7: Please complement and expand your study conclusions.

Response 7: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the “Conclusions” section to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the results and to highlight their practical and theoretical implications. Specifically, we now:

-            discuss how the findings clarify the interplay between individual factors (attitudes, self-efficacy) and contextual conditions (barriers, organizational climate) in shaping teachers’ use of storytelling (Conclusions, page 12, lines 475-479)

-            outline implications for teacher training and school development, showing how the results informed the design of the professional development activities within the PLACES project (Conclusions, page 12, lines 478-487).

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful feedback. We appreciate the positive assessment of the manuscript’s relevance and contribution to the field. Regarding the Questions for General Evaluation, we have carefully addressed the two aspects marked as “Can be improved,” and we thank the reviewer for the positive ratings on all remaining criteria. Below, we provide detailed responses to each specific comment raised, together with a summary of the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

We strengthened the Introduction by further contextualizing the study within existing research on storytelling, active methodologies, and students’ development.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

We substantially revised the Material and Methods section to improve clarity and transparency. Overall, we deeply described the PLACES project, the study’s questionnaire, and we added explicit research questions aligned with the study aims;

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The title suggests “empowering students,” but the study analyzes teachers—is there a slight confusion here?

Response 1: Thank you for this insightful and important comment. We agree that the original title may have generated ambiguity by emphasizing student empowerment while the empirical analysis focuses on teachers. To address this concern, we revised the title so that it more clearly reflects the scope and purpose of the study. The new title explicitly frames student empowerment as the broader goal and clarifies that the present study investigates the teacher-related psychological and contextual factors that enable this process:

“How can students be empowered in relation to SDGs through active learning? Psychological and contextual dimensions associated with teachers’ use of storytelling in Europe.”

Although the study examines teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy, barriers, and contextual conditions, its findings are instrumental for empowering students, as they directly informed the design of storytelling-based learning materials and classroom activities within the PLACES project. To avoid ambiguity, we clarified this connection in the manuscript by adding explicit references to how storytelling contributes to students’ development and empowerment (Introduction, page 2, line 65-69).

Comments 2: It was important for the authors to quickly show the variables under study, type of scale (Likert, for example), and they should reference the sample size and in which countries the study was conducted.

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful observation. We clarified these aspects both in the Abstract and in the main text. In the Abstract, we now explicitly report the variables under study, the type of scales used (5-point Likert scales), the sample size, and the participating countries (Abstract, page 1, line 15).

Additionally, in the main manuscript, we expanded the description of the questionnaire and provided a clearer overview of all variables and measurement tools. The section “2.2 The Questionnaire” now specifies the structure of the instrument, the type of items included, and the scales used for each construct. We also added a more detailed descriptive paragraph at the beginning of the Results section, and Table 2 now summarizes all indicators with their descriptive statistics, offering the reader an immediate understanding of the variables analyzed (Materials and Methods, “2.2 The questionnaire”, page 4. Lines 173-184; Results, page 7, lines 267-272).

Comments 3: I found the introduction to be well-referenced and solid overall. The text references a lack of studies, which could be a plus. I only identified minor grammatical and syntactical errors (“It engage students...”, “Active learning enhance also...”). It should read something like: t engages students through collaborative, experiential, and problem-based activities (...)

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestions. We corrected grammatical and syntactical errors throughout the manuscript, and the English language has been thoroughly revised.

Comments 4: This section is well structured, but it needs to explain to the reader what type of study it is (e.g., exploratory? correlational? cross-sectional?); what measurement instruments were used, how many questions, scales used, examples of items, reliability, etc.

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable comment which allowed us to improve our manuscript. We have now revised the Materials and Methods paragraph and we have added detailed information:

-            A section titled “The questionnaire” to better describe the questionnaire used in PLACES project, including all the dimensions explored in the questionnaire, as required from Reviewer 2 (Material and Methods, “2.2 The questionnaire” subsection, page 4, lines 164-184).

-            In “The study and the sample” section you can find some information about the study design (quantitative, cross-sectional, and correlational design), and more information about the sample (distribution, and final sample included in the analysis) (Material and Methods, “2.3 The study and the sample” subsection, page 5, lines 186-195).

-            The “Measures” section includes all the psychometric properties of the scale included in the analysis (Materials and Methods, “2.3 Measures” subsection, page 6, lines 204-234).

Comments 5: Something I did not understand, or that seems confusing, is the inconsistencies in the description of the sample. At the beginning, the authors refer to 198 teachers, but then they say “the present study involves 138 teachers” without explaining the difference (exclusions? missing data? criteria?). They also say that they excluded Danish teachers (N=9), but this exclusion does not explain the reduction of 60 participants. NOTE: if this is resolved later in another chapter, you can ignore it. But it would be important to have an explanation in this chapter.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this issue, which allowed us to improve the manuscript more thoroughly. In the revised manuscript, we now clearly explain the difference between the initial number of questionnaire respondents (N = 198) and the final analytical sample (N = 138). Specifically, we now clarify that Danish teachers (N = 9) were excluded due to the very small subgroup size, and that an additional 51 participants were excluded because their responses were incomplete or because they did not meet the inclusion criteria for the analyses (e.g., missing data on key variables or teaching outside primary/lower secondary education). We revised the “Sample” subsection to present this information in a transparent and consistent way, ensuring that the final analytical sample (N = 138) is clearly justified. (Materials and Methods, “2.3 The study and the sample” subsection, page 5, lines 188-195). In addition, we reviewed the Abstract to ensure full alignment with the corrected sample description and to avoid any inconsistencies (Abstract, page 1, lines 15-18).

Comments 6: I think there could be an explanation if the instrument was translated or adapted into other languages, which is very important to explain.

Response 6: Thank you for this observation. We have now added a sentence in the new “The questionnaire” subsection clarifying that the questionnaire was originally developed in English and then translated into the languages of the participating countries using a back-translation procedure, according with Brislin (1970). This process involved bilingual researchers and an iterative comparison of versions to guarantee conceptual equivalence, as now described in the revised manuscript (Materials and Methods, “2.2 The questionnaire” subsection, page 5, lines 181-184).

Moreover, we now explicitly report the sources of the scales used in the study (e.g., Heo et al., 2009 for self-efficacy; Seng Swee Hoon, 2017 for barriers; AL-Takhayneh et al., 2022 for organizational climate). These details are now provided in the revised manuscript (Materials and Methods, “2.3 Measures”, page 5, lines 205-234).

Comments 7: Something confusing: I understood from the abstract that they used logistic regression, but here they describe hierarchical regression (which is linear, not logistic), they seem to be different! You must ensure consistency between the abstract, methods, and results.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this inconsistency We have corrected the abstract accordingly so that the type of analysis is now consistent throughout the manuscript. The correct analysis is hierarchical regression (Abstract, page 1, line 16).

Comments 8: The sentence “it was hypothesized that the perceived organizational climate for innovation moderate the relationship...” contains a grammatical error (it should be moderates).

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. We corrected the error (Materials and Methods, “2.4 The Analysis” subsection, page 8, line ). We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve grammar, clarity, and syntactic structure throughout the text.

Comments 9: The results section follows a solid structure. However, there are still some points that could be improved. For example, in the Analysis and Measures section, the authors used the term “perceived organizational climate for innovation,” but here in Results, “school readiness” appears (in “interaction of self-efficacy and school readiness”). This seems confusing and leads the reader to believe that different variables were measured.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We have now aligned the terminology throughout the manuscript by consistently using the name of the scale, “perceived organizational climate for innovation,” in both the “Analysis” and “Measures” sections and in the Results section. The term “school readiness” has been removed.

Comments 10: “Indicating that the significant interaction of self-efficacy and school readiness on storytelling use." This sentence is grammatically incorrect and incomplete.

Suggestion: indicating a significant interaction between self-efficacy and the perceived organizational climate for innovation in predicting storytelling use."

Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. We corrected the error (Results, “3.3 Organizational school climate and teachers’ self-efficacy”, page 10, line 335). We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve grammar, clarity, and syntactic structure throughout the text.

Comments 11: The limitations could be improved, for example: “acceptable power to detect medium-sized effects (Maxwell, 2004)” — should indicate the actual value (e.g., “.60 for moderation effects”).

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have now specified the actual statistical power values in the paragraph regarding study’s limitations, and we have also clarified the constraints related to the cross-sectional nature of the research design (Discussion, page 12, lines 431-433).

Comments 12: The conclusion deserves to be explored further, as it seems too short and generic. I think they could emphasize the specific scientific contribution (e.g., “This study advances understanding of how contextual factors moderate psychological determinants of innovation among teachers”).

Response 12: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have now expanded the “Conclusion” section to provide a more substantial and nuanced discussion of the study’s scientific contribution, given the three study’s aims. We now emphasize how the findings advance understanding of the interaction between individual psychological factors (such as self-efficacy) and contextual factors (such as the organizational climate for innovation) and the implications of these results for designing teacher training and school-wide interventions within the PLACES project, such as teachers’ training and experimental phase, involving the entire school (Conclusions, page 13, line 475-487).

Comments 13: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 13: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve grammar, clarity, and syntactic structure throughout the text.