Revisiting Education for Sustainable Development: Methods to Inspire Secondary School Students toward Renewable Energy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract - well written summary

Introduction:

• convincing case made for topic at hand
• 1.1 Education in RE: I think the use of the phrasing "early stage" in the context of education spectrum is confusing when it is used to mean secondary school; typically early stage might signal early childhood education or even elementary, not typically secondary; consider rephrasing throughout so just using introduction in secondary school v early stage
• section overall is very well-written, clear, organized and sets up the paper very well

 

Aim of Review

• I wonder if it would be helpful to clarify in section 2 if there is a grade/age focus in terms of the role of education (is it going to be a review of literature from preschool/preK - highschool or through college?  or across the lifespan? as I got to end of section paragraph and as I progressed in reading, it was more clear but thinking to state this earlier in this section

Method

• might be helpful to indicate how web of science and scopus were selected (especially in light of the focus on role of education)
• overall very clearly written, concise but sufficient
• table of included articles very helpful and a nice contribution in and of itself
• from the method to the results, it seems something is missing; once you identified the articles for inclusion, what happened in between having the research aim and the articles to get to the "results" of section 4; what was the analyses; I think that should be a subsection of the methods prior to presenting results

Results

• as mentioned, knowing what the analysis process was that led to these results would be helpful as it almost seems we are missing that step plus the "raw data" results beyond the listing of articles - what steps to summarize/analyze and then presenting those results prior to the discussion of them (as what is in section four feels like the discussion ut without the full results)

Limitations and Conclusion sections on track and well-written

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is potentially an interested and relevant study.  However it is poorly presented and hence the reader is unlikely to follow the main intentions. It refers to a new route but it is very unclear to what the new route refers

The title is the first aspect that seems to lack clarity, especially. with respect to the 'new route'.    What exactly is the new route_  This expression to be only used in the title!!  And why refer to 'inspire' Again this is only used in the title.

The title is followed by an abstract, which does not fully meet the intention seen as indicating - the need/purpose, the how and the outcomes from the research.

The keywords are relevant, but are both sustainable development and ESD required?  And is the list sufficiently exhaustive? What about environment? And should whatever is the new route be a component ?  

The introduction is expected to 'set the scene' and thus provide the context for the research plus the concerns that indicate the need for the research.  And while this leads to the aim of the research, it is also expected to relate to research questions, but these are absent (event though reference to this is made in the follow up paragraph!!)

While the methodology is by and large appropriate in setting out the research process, it is difficult to comprehend why the results are combined with the discussion.  The results are expected to give the findings and their interpretation (plus any analyses if appropriate),  while the discussion is concerned with the implications of the findings, particularly in the light of the existing literature.  These implications interrelate with the introductory components and can be expected to feed the conclusion, where the research questions are answered explicitly.

The conclusion is just that - it concludes by answering the research questions elaborating what is meant by the new route, which stems from and gives importance to , it is presumed, figure 3.     

Author Response

Please the see the attachment

Thank  you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

most of comments made in first round are still relevant

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I am afraid the manuscript is still far too confusing. The term 'methods' is now included in the title, but for what purpose?   Is it related to the approaches used, or is it a consideration of the various methods used in the literature reviews, or the methods advocated to promote RE?  In the abstract it is stated 'Thus, we propose adopting collaborative multidisciplinary and informal and non-formal and other methods as means toward arousing secondary students’ interest in RE education to achieve the SDGs'. So what are these methods?   The clarity is not indicated.   In what ways does RE need addressing?

The aim of the literature review is given on lines 131-140, but what are the aims of the research? Are these the same? The conclusion refers to new curricula, while omitting mention of methods. So to what is the research actually related? It seems without stating specific research questions, which are then answered very explicitly in the conclusion, the research purpose is unclear.  At present, the conclusion is mainly a revamp of findings and the discussion without any clear message other than the need for new curricula.

This ambiguity is amplified by the lack of specific results from the review of the various literature outcomes stated n the results section.  By including findings (which are results are they not?) in the methodology and then naming a 'results and discussion' section, the individual specific findings are not explicitly discussed, leaving the discussion to go into generalities or overall implications and which says relatively little on the implications of specific findings (stated the methodology) and how these are put together to lead to value of the model or figure 3.     

While the methodology is clear and is meaningful with respect to the aim of the study in terms of undertaking a literature review, it also, seemingly, covers the outcomes both in terms of 'relevance in education, and literature findings.  This leaves the paper lacking structure (what exactly is analysed?) and little is given by way of discussing the linking of the various aspects in the various literature research findings  and hence leading to the major features and the degree of relevance of these features which is to look, it seems, to curriculum implications.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx