Innovative FOCUS: A Program to Foster Creativity and Innovation in the Context of Education for Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this interesting read. I strongly recommend the following adjustments to enhance the strong message of your paper.

 

1) In your "Materials and Methods" section, you mention qualitative measures. However, you miss to present your approach and results. Please either delete "qualitative measures" or explain your results. 

 

2) Please consider including third order headings in section 3.3 "Instruments" to present your two different investigations separately (teacher/student).

 

3) Please delete lines 472-474.

 

4) Please consider separating your results by presenting the teacher results first and the student results second. This might improve reader comprehension. 

 

5) You describe several interesting prototypes in section 4.2. This leaves the question: What happened to the unsuccessful projects? Could you provide more information?

 

6) Please expand the discussion by explaining the main element of FOCUS.

 

7) What are the limitations of your research?

Author Response

Many thanks to all reviewers for their valuable and appreciative comments.

1	In your "Materials and Methods" section, you mention qualitative measures. However, you miss to present your approach and results. Please either delete "qualitative measures" or explain your results.	Sorry, but there were no qualitative measures. This mistake is now deleted.
2	Please consider including third-order headings in section 3.3 "Instruments" to present your two different investigations separately (teacher/student).	Third-order headings are now in this section to separate teacher and student level.
3	Please delete lines 472-474	The deletion was completed
4	Please consider separating your results by presenting the teacher results first and the student results second. This might improve reader comprehension	Thanks for the hint - has been adopted in this way.
5	You describe several interesting prototypes in section 4.2. This leaves the question: What happened to the unsuccessful projects? Could you provide more information?	The explanation for the withdrawal of 2 groups was added and can be found in section 4.1
6	Please expand the discussion by explaining the main element of FOCUS.	The discussion was expanded and the main elements of the In FOCUS program were explained.
7	What are the limitations of your research?	Limitations of the research are now included and discussed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's title and objective are both informative and pertinent. The abstract, while concise and informative, could benefit from the inclusion of a brief description of the research questions.

The Introduction effectively employs a structured approach with four pertinent sub-chapters, successfully orienting readers to the topic and theoretical framework of the case study on the INNOVATIVE FOCUS Program.

It is recommended that the authors consider incorporating annexes for Thinkflex, Morphological Box, and APIFOS tools. Despite the mention of Haim & Aschauer (2022) as a source for details about these tools, including them as annexes would enhance accessibility and comprehensiveness. This suggestion is reinforced by the authors' mention in the Discussion section about the potential for further research on the effectiveness of individual tools and the adaptability of the InFOCUS program in diverse cultural and educational contexts.

The results are appropriately presented, and the conclusions effectively relate to the study's objectives, offering clarity to the reader.

It is advisable for the authors to incorporate a discussion of the limitations of their study in the Discussion section. Acknowledging and addressing potential constraints will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the research and guide future investigations.

Overall, the paper demonstrates numerous strengths. The proposed suggestions are directed towards improving the informativeness of the abstract, making the research tools more accessible, and enhancing the discussion through the addressing of study limitations.

Author Response

Many thanks for the valuable and appreciative comments.

1	The paper's title and objective are both informative and pertinent. The abstract, while concise and informative, could benefit from the inclusion of a brief description of the research questions.	The abstract was rewritten according to the requirements.
2	It is recommended that the authors consider incorporating annexes for Thinkflex, Morphological Box, and APIFOS tools. Despite the mention of Haim & Aschauer (2022) as a source for details about these tools, including them as annexes would enhance accessibility and comprehensiveness. This suggestion is reinforced by the authors' mention in the Discussion section about the potential for further research on the effectiveness of individual tools and the adaptability of the InFOCUS program in diverse cultural and educational contexts.	Thinkflex, Morphological Box and APIFOS have now been included as appendices to the article.
3	It is advisable for the authors to incorporate a discussion of the limitations of their study in the Discussion section. Acknowledging and addressing potential constraints will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the research and guide future investigations.	Limitations of the research are now included and discussed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following sugggestions for your manuscript 

Ensure the abstract clearly outlines the study's objectives, methods, main findings, and conclusions. Highlighting key findings and their implications in sustainability education more explicitly could be beneficial.

Introduction

Expanding on why this program is necessary and how it addresses an existing gap in sustainability education could enhance the introduction.

Make sure the study's objectives are clearly stated and how the INNOVATIVE FOCUS program meets these objectives.

I suggest to review the following papers

Portuguez Castro, M.; Gómez Zermeño, M.G. Identifying Entrepreneurial Interest and Skills among University Students. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13136995

Portuguez Castro, M. & Gómez Zermeño, M.G. (2020). Challenge Based Learning: Innovative Pedagogy for Sustainability through e-Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability, 12 (10) 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104063

Methodology

Provide more details on how the program was implemented in schools, including selection criteria for schools and participating teachers.

Elaborate on how the study was designed to assess the program's effectiveness, including data collection and analysis methods.

Results

Ensure the results are presented clearly and succinctly, using tables or figures as appropriate to summarize findings.

Delve deeper into the results' interpretation and how they support the study's objectives. Discuss any surprising or unexpected findings.

Discussion

Highlight the practical implications of your findings for educators and policymakers.

Provide suggestions for implementing the INNOVATIVE FOCUS program in other educational contexts.

These suggestions aim to enhance the clarity, coherence, and comprehensiveness of your paper, ultimately strengthening its contribution to the field.

 

 

Author Response

Many thanks for the valuable and appreciative comments.

1	Ensure the abstract clearly outlines the study's objectives, methods, main findings, and conclusions. Highlighting key findings and their implications in sustainability education more explicitly could be beneficial.	The abstract was rewritten according to the requirements.
2	Introduction Expanding on why this program is necessary and how it addresses an existing gap in sustainability education could enhance the introduction.	The existing gap was now addressed in the discussion.
3	Introduction Make sure the study's objectives are clearly stated and how the INNOVATIVE FOCUS program meets these objectives.	The objectives of the study were formulated more clearly and it was explained why the INNOVATIVE FOCUS program can fulfil these objectives.
4	Introduction I suggest to review the following papers: Portuguez Castro et al., 2020; Portuguez Castro et al., 2021.	Many thanks for the literature recommendation. It has also been incorporated into our manuscript.
5	Methodology Provide more details on how the program was implemented in schools, including selection criteria for schools and participating teachers.	Additional data has been incorporated into the manuscript.
6	Methodology Elaborate on how the study was designed to assess the program's effectiveness, including data collection and analysis methods.	Research design, data collection, and data analysis are now described in detail in section instruments.
7	Results Ensure the results are presented clearly and succinctly, using tables or figures as appropriate to summarize findings.	Additional tables have been included in the manuscript to present the results more clearly.
	Results Delve deeper into the results' interpretation and how they support the study's objectives. Discuss any surprising or unexpected findings.	The results have been interpreted in more detail.
	Discussion Highlight the practical implications of your findings for educators and policymakers.	Further conclusions for teachers were added in the discussion.
	Discussion Provide suggestions for implementing the INNOVATIVE FOCUS program in other educational contexts.	Suggestions for implementing the InFOCUS program were included.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that the changes were made, thank you for taking this into account.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

We changed 5-part to 5-point.

We deleted the reference 26.