[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
No competing interests were disclosed.
As a widely offered course in International Relations (IR) programs, the teaching and learning of Southeast Asian Regional Dynamics (SARD) struggles to adopt a pedagogical strategy that counters stagnancy and passive learning. The problem is exacerbated when SARD courses discuss topics of sustainability in Southeast Asia, which obligates instructors to introduce complex empirical cases that may be difficult for students to grasp. As a means to ignite the students’ interests and allow a platform in which students can see directly the issues that defy sustainable development in the region, this study bridges the conception of experiential learning in SARD courses based on Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier’s study on short-term faculty-led study abroad programs, and looks at the prospects of its implementation into SARD courses. To make this argument, this study explores the following ideas: The intertwining of sustainability and Southeast Asian contexts by exploring academic topics such as haze pollution, climate change, and illegal fishing within the context of Southeast Asia, as well as culturally-sensitive topics; acknowledgement of the instructors’ responsibilities within the context of program planning, technical arrangements, and the conduct of program orientations; and establishing active learning students through real-life learning mechanisms that elevate the students’ independent learning, research skills, communication skills, and critical thinking.
Within the context of IR teaching and learning programs of higher education institutions, sustainability-related topics have always been an integral part of the curricula. In some universities, sustainability acts as a single elective course; meanwhile, in others, it is part of a broader IR topic. For example, in a course discussing regional dynamics of IR, a course on SARD may have a topic discussing how sustainability has been achieved with regional collaborative efforts within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the tensions arising among the states within that region.
Nevertheless, the idea of sustainability differs from other analytical and conceptual frameworks within the study of IR. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) announced the framework of Education for Sustainable Development as a global development agenda of ingraining sustainable development into the curricula of higher education institutions (
However, in the case of IR teaching and learning, an issue is immediately encountered. IR classrooms, including those that cover sustainability topics, tend to focus on theoretical, conceptual, and empirical issues through traditional teaching methods in classrooms (
The case is also evident in the teaching and learning processes of SARD courses. As a widely taught course in many Southeast Asian universities, SARD also struggles with the adoption of alternative pedagogies to replace stagnant and passive learning that tends to be adopted in classrooms. Therefore, although students attain greater knowledge of the sustainability concerns in the Southeast Asian region by the end of the course, the course is unable to offer direct experiences with global sustainability issues, as its focus tends to be oriented toward empirical and theoretical explanations. This is a concern, considering the trend of higher education institutions undertaking systematic changes to orient research and education practices to sustainability (
Drawing on relevant literature on experiential learning and faculty-led study abroad programs, this study argues for the relevance of short-term study abroad programs as a means to supplement what is taught within SARD classes. Considering the complex nature of the topic, which comprises dynamic tensions among Southeast Asian states due to haze pollution, the difficulty of balancing economic performances and environmental protection, as well as challenges of climate change, this study perceives that students could benefit from a short-term abroad program that helps them work on a specific case related to sustainability. As argued by many scholars in the past, experiential learning provides a unique learning atmosphere for students as they delve at the center of the community to observe by themselves, dynamics related to the substantives being taught in classrooms (
Experiential learning in IR is not new. However, it is less common within the specific context of SARD. In the past, scholars have argued that service learning offered as an experiential learning experience has been able to ignite the interests of students towards sustainable development in alignment with UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (
Learning sustainability is not a simple task for the typical student. As Kleespies and Dierkes found in their 2022 study, a connection exists between social, economic, and environmental factors in terms of sustainability (
The first discourse relevant to this study examines the numerous barriers to learning sustainability. Within this discourse, scholars acknowledge that sustainability is a complex topic, which leads to different variables affecting the success of the transfer of knowledge intended by instructors (
Nevertheless, there is also considerable work examining other variables such as emotions, social learning, agency, and curriculum as the main barriers to sustainability learning (
Despite the rich theoretical and academic discussions on the barriers of sustainability learning, there have also been considerable studies made exploring divergent methods. Scholars have explored different approaches in teaching and learning sustainability, including community-based programs, problem-based learning, collaborative mechanisms, innovative pedagogies, as well as virtual experiences (
In other cases, academics have explored various methods to establish practical approaches in teaching and learning sustainability. An example, through collaborative mechanisms with relevant institutions, a 2025 study concluded that knowledge on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be retrieved by bringing, “[ …] students from other cultures and slightly different disciplines, with one being management and the other being practice-based, together to successfully demonstrate the use of an innovative methods” (
Nevertheless, the majority of studies have focused on the more traditional methods of teaching and learning processes that help establish emotional connections with students’ surroundings. As mentioned in multiple studies looking at community service programs being implemented in higher education institutions, these studies are united by the argument that these methods allow students to actively engage with their local communities and help in “[…] fostering civic responsibility” (
The last discourse on service-learning encompasses the majority of studies examining sustainability learning methods. Through a service-learning pedagogical approach, students can enhance their knowledge of the SDGs and practices that promote sustainable community development (
Specific studies would only differ in the points being investigated in relation to service-learning. In a 2024 study, academics traced the processes leading to the substantial shift in curriculum pertaining to sustainable development studies, which have now introduced more experiential learning methods (
But how about the teaching and learning of sustainability in the context of a different curriculum, specifically SARD courses in IR? Unfortunately, the processes are not straightforward, as there has been no academic inquiry specifically addressing the various contexts and challenges associated with increasing the awareness of sustainability topics and concerns among IR students in the Southeast Asian regional context. In a study made in 2024, scholars acknowledged the importance of educators as the leading actor that helps to determine a successful learning system for students, stating, “Educators play a pivotal role in implementation, and unless they are trained and incentivized and this is systemized, not only Service-Learning but also ESD may fail to transform learning environments” (
Recognizing the lack of past studies that cover the ‘how’ of learning sustainability within the context of SARD courses under IR programs, this study bridges the conception of experiential learning through short-term abroad programs, as proposed by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier. Within the discourse of experiential learning, numerous studies in the past have argued how study abroad programs allows for greater achievement of a subject’s learning outcomes and advance students’ cross-cultural awareness (
The first looks to construct the outline of a program, which comprises the program design and curriculum. Perhaps the most significant task is to determine the destination and length of a short-term abroad program as an experiential learning experience for students (
Besides determining the substantive coverage of experiential learning, instructors should also be aware of other responsibilities. From the onset, instructors should be able to answer several technical questions before initiating the program. In relation to the institution, it is essential to determine whether there are significant barriers and challenges within the university or department (
Another responsibility for the instructors pertains to the technical elements of the travel. Regarding factors related to accommodation, in-city transportation, and airport pickup, these technical aspects could be overwhelming for the instructors. Therefore, as suggested in several past studies, instructors could benefit from using a third-party service or a ‘provider’ that can help arrange the technical elements in a host country where an instructor may not be very familiar (
Instructors are also placed with the burden of having multiple roles in the program. Not only is the expectation that instructors will lead the effort in determining the program outline, but they are also expected to act as a health professional for the students in times of emergency (
The pedagogical strategy used throughout the short-term program would also need to be carefully determined by the instructors. As argued in the literature review section, multiple studies have supported the positive impacts of using service-learning as a means to enhance students’ learning experiences in the past (
Finally, several key points regarding the responsibilities of students need to be highlighted. Before their departure, one significant barrier that students will need to overcome is the costs associated with the program. As a means to enhance real-life skills (
Another issue that students need to be aware of is to prepare themselves with the relevant materials related to the program. In the pre-departure program, students must ensure that they properly engage with the subject matter and culturally related topics covered to ensure they are prepared to participate in learning activities abroad. Meanwhile, throughout the program’s conduct, students are expected to be at the center of the learning process and display active participation when hosted by another university (
The ideas introduced by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier will be integrated into the teaching and learning process of SARD courses within IR programs. In doing so, the following will be structured as follows. First, it provides a recommendation for a program’s outline, aiming to intertwine the fundamentals of sustainability with Southeast Asian contexts for an abroad program. Following this is an elaboration of the instructors’ responsibilities and what is expected from a participating student. By providing such guidelines, this study benefits instructors who seek to adopt experiential learning and integrate creative pedagogies with service-learning in their teaching and learning practices.
The substantive coverage of an SARD course encompasses a wide range of empirical issues within the Southeast Asian region. A typical SARD course would begin by covering the history of the region, the vast political dynamics of the member states, efforts toward regional integration, as well as the contemporary challenges faced by the Southeast Asian states. In relation to sustainability, therefore, SARD courses would only cover the topic as a minor class session or across several classes as an example of cooperation or as an illustration of barriers to regional engagement.
Consequently, it is essential to identify several potential topics related to sustainability within the Southeast Asian context, which will serve as the basis for teaching and learning subjects offered in the short-term study abroad program. One of the first issues that instructors and students can explore is haze pollution in Southeast Asia. The haze problem is unique in the region, as it is a complex issue involving the roles of local, state, and regional actors (
Another topic that students can explore in the teaching and learning platforms of a study abroad program related to SARD is the issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUUF). The Southeast Asian region is rich in sea-based resources, which the states in the region continue to exploit (
Another topic that intertwines the issues of sustainability and the Southeast Asian regional context is climate change. Climate change is a global issue, not confined to any particular region. However, the dynamics in Southeast Asia are unique. First, Southeast Asian states are currently at a phase where industrialization is a trend among the government stakeholders, as they undertake measures to enhance the state’s economy by establishing industrialized systems (
Within the context of Southeast Asia’s concerns over climate change are also the vast impacts that the region encounters. Southeast Asia primarily comprises littoral states and has direct boundaries with international seas. Consequently, in recent years, there has been a steady rise in sea levels directly linked to the global temperature increase (
As mentioned in multiple studies in the past (
After looking at the potential themes for the study abroad program, instructors would need to undertake several responsibilities to ensure the success of the experiential learning program. Before the actual departure of the students, instructors must first determine the timing of the program (
As the responsible individual for the program, instructors would then need to look at the potential partnering universities to conduct the short-term study abroad program. Instructors should acknowledge that their universities have established partnerships with other higher education institutions in the past, with some of these partnerships remaining active in the current status quo. Therefore, instructors should be able to identify the options of host universities, taking into consideration that a particular higher education institution may have expertise and specialize in one of the themes that the instructors wish to emphasize in the study abroad program. Nevertheless, an instructor should be able to weigh in on different considerations in determining the host country and university. For example, in a SARD course, instructors should opt to look first at Southeast Asian Universities as the primary option, if it is technically possible to make that long journey. As SARD courses are mainly offered in Asian higher education institutions, the bearing costs are not expected to be excessive.
Meanwhile, during the conduct of the study abroad program, instructors are also faced with responsibilities related to the technical arrangements of the program and the pedagogical strategy used. On the former, the primary concern should be how instructors would arrange issues such as accommodations and transportation throughout the program. If the burden of this is unbearable, perhaps due to the high number of program participants, instructors should definitely explore the option of using providers (
In doing so, a stronger emphasis can be placed on determining the most effective pedagogical strategy for the program. As mentioned in past studies, Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier stated, “[…] it is important to ensure our curricula are purposefully and holistically designed in order to have the positive impact we desire” (
If instructors are looking to adopt a more interdisciplinary approach to their studies, perhaps examining innovative learning systems can provide the solution needed. As Below’s study argued, “[…] interdisciplinary approaches can facilitate rich conversations and learning experiences and attract students” (
Besides determining the pedagogical strategy, it is also expected that instructors will ensure, during the course of the study abroad program, that students are culturally aware of the customs relevant in the host country. Expectedly, it is also the instructors’ responsibility to ensure that they provide a safe place for students to express their concerns to counter mental health-related concerns of the students (
It is also vital for instructors to consider re-entry orientations and assignments before departing for the student’s country of origin. As past studies show, there are multiple benefits in introducing these systems before returning, which, among many, include the countering of students struggling to integrate back into their societies (
Courses on SARD can be challenging for IR students to grasp. The expectation of mastering a vast number of empirical cases related to the Southeast Asian region can be challenging for students if presented in a stagnant and less engaging manner. Therefore, the teaching and learning of an SARD course must ensure that it does so in a way that actively involves the students to help ignite their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as expected in IR programs globally (
To successfully adopt this experiential learning model in short-term study abroad programs, both instructors and participating students must assume several responsibilities to engage in this active learning approach fully. First relates to the costs associated with attending the program. As shown in the previous subsection, the length of programs varies significantly, and as recommended, it should not exceed a time length that would place an unnecessary financial burden on those participating in the program. Consequently, the first thing students may need to consider is fundraising projects. Whether conducted personally or collectively, fundraising programs help build a student’s creativity and oral communication skills (
Nevertheless, the idea of fundraising can take creative forms, such as engaging with different stakeholders. As the study abroad program fulfills the learning outcomes of the SARD course, students could consider engaging with stakeholders of interest in the Southeast Asian region, which may have connections to sustainability issues. If, for example, the experiential learning model selected takes the form of service-learning through a specific project on waste management in Southeast Asia, students may seek to engage with government stakeholders or non-governmental organizations to explore the forms of assistance those entities can provide to the participating students. Suppose a program involves a curriculum that builds upon a local or regional government’s sustainability program. In that case, students may be able to actively engage with local government stakeholders and explore whether the programs would receive financial support.
Besides the issue of costs, students’ responsibilities also relate to the cultures and academic subjects taught during the experiential learning program. In terms of culture, instructors have the responsibility to introduce the differences in cultural customs that are adopted in host countries. Nevertheless, students will need to undertake independent learning to delve deeper into the cultures, considering that, in the case of service-learning, for example, the students’ responsibilities would include communicating directly with society (
Considering the cultural and academic substance that students need to prepare themselves for, the students’ participation during the actual study abroad program would be filled with preparation. Therefore, whatever form experiential learning takes during the learning process, students are able to anticipate differences in cultures and actively engage with topics introduced during the learning process, due to the independent research and learning they undertook prior to their departure. As argued in the past literature on student-centered learning, the active participation of students in the learning process enables them to develop several lifelong skills and helps them cope with the uncertainties of the future (
Experiential learning through study abroad programs has the potential to achieve the learning outcomes of SARD courses in IR programs more engagingly and uniquely for students. As Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier mentioned in
This study identifies the issue of teaching and learning sustainability topics within SARD courses as its main problem. The teaching of sustainability presents distinct challenges, as students need to witness firsthand the challenges that undermine sustainability practices across the region. However, with the existing teaching and learning systems, classroom teachings are unable to offer direct experiences of the world on sustainability issues due to their focus on empirical and theoretical explanations. Therefore, drawing from relevant literature on experiential learning and faculty-led short-term study abroad programs, this study bridges the idea of experiential learning, as proposed by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, and its potential to be adopted in the teaching and learning process of SARD courses. As argued by scholars in the past, experiential learning provides students with a unique learning environment, allowing them to observe firsthand the sustainability issues faced by communities and discuss potential solutions with their peers.
By adopting the mechanisms of experiential learning, faculty-led study abroad programs provide a feasible learning platform for students, considering several elements that the literature argues are important. Regarding the program’s outline, this study proposes several ideas for intertwining sustainability and Southeast Asia as the focus of the study abroad program. Despite sustainability being a minor topic within an SARD course, the program offers the option to select several emerging sustainability challenges in the Southeast Asian region, which helps ignite students’ curiosity and understanding of the region. These include issues such as haze pollution, IUUF, and climate change, which are unique to the Southeast Asian context. As the literature also shows, it is essential to incorporate topics related to cultural awareness within the substantive content, considering that the study abroad program will take place in a country with which students may not be familiar.
After selecting an appropriate theme for the study abroad program, the discussion then delves into the instructor’s responsibilities. Still related to the program outline, instructors are mandated to determine the timing of the program, which includes how long it will last and when the experiential learning program will be offered to the students. Related to this is the program’s destination, where instructors should be able to liaise with partnering universities and correspond with them regarding the proposal for a short-term study abroad program. After resolving the issues of time and destination, instructors should also consider the technical responsibilities of conducting this type of program, which typically require them to determine accommodation and transportation arrangements (although these technical tasks can be delegated through a third-party service). Lastly, instructors also have the responsibility of determining the best pedagogical strategy to be employed during the course of the program, as well as conducting pre- and re-entry orientations to prepare students well before their departure.
Third, this study zooms in on the students themselves. As participants in an experiential learning program, students also have certain expectations. At the first level, this includes cost-related responsibilities, in which students are expected to undertake fundraising projects and submit proposals to help finance their travels. Interestingly, as experiential learning can take the forms of service-learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning, students would benefit from the independent learning that they will need to undertake before departing for the host country, as they delve deeper into the divergent cultural customs adopted in foreign countries, as well as research topics relevant to sustainability in the Southeast Asian context. The students’ active participation throughout the experiential learning course allows them to practice skills expected of IR graduates, including teamwork, critical thinking, and communication skills.
Ethics statement is not needed for this study.
Data sharing is not applicable to this research as no data were generated or analysed.
The article argues that traditional lecture-based teaching in Southeast Asian Regional Dynamics (SARD) courses fails to convey the complexity of sustainability and proposes short-term, faculty-led study abroad programs as an experiential learning approach to enhance student engagement, skills, and real-world understanding. It clearly identifies a pedagogical gap and offers a structured, practice-oriented framework grounded in relevant regional issues, including haze pollution, illegal fishing, and climate change. The manuscript is well-written and conceptually valuable, but it is only partially comprehensive and lacks full methodological robustness. Major issues that must be addressed for scientific soundness: (1) clearly define the article as a conceptual/narrative review rather than an empirical “study”; (2) add a transparent methodology explaining literature selection, scope, and synthesis; and (3) moderate claims of effectiveness, reframing conclusions as plausible proposals rather than demonstrated outcomes. Without these revisions, the evidentiary basis and validity of the conclusions remain insufficiently supported.
Further improvements are needed to strengthen rigor and applicability. The literature review is relevant but insufficiently systematized; the authors should explicitly map how specific strands of literature inform each component of the proposed framework (e.g., via a table or diagram). Claims about feasibility and impact should be better supported or clearly qualified, particularly given the absence of empirical testing. Additionally, the manuscript should more explicitly define contextual limitations (e.g., institutional capacity, funding, partnerships) to avoid overgeneralization, and include a brief discussion of ethical considerations in community-based experiential learning (e.g., cultural sensitivity, non-extractive engagement). These latter points are important but secondary; the core mandatory revisions remain methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and claim calibration. Addressing these would make the article a credible and useful contribution to IR pedagogy.
Is the review written in accessible language?
Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?
Yes
Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?
Yes
Reviewer Expertise:
Higher education and social sciences
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The article addresses a relevant and well-defined pedagogical problem: how to strengthen the teaching of sustainability in
Among its genuine strengths, the manuscript identifies a specific gap at the intersection of International Relations pedagogy, sustainability education, and Southeast Asian regional studies. It also goes beyond defending experiential learning in abstract terms by attempting to translate that approach into concrete curricular design orientations. In addition, the proposal is anchored in regionally recognizable issues such as transboundary haze, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and climate change, which improves both disciplinary relevance and pedagogical usefulness. The article therefore has merit as a conceptual contribution with practical teaching implications.
That said, I believe the manuscript still requires substantial revision in order to become fully scientifically sound. My first critical concern relates to the definition of the article type and to the traceability of its knowledge-construction strategy. The text presents itself as a “study,” but in practice it functions as a narrative review combined with a conceptual pedagogical design proposal. That is not a problem in itself; the problem is that this nature is not stated clearly enough. The manuscript does not report literature selection criteria, temporal scope, logic of source integration, or the procedure through which it moves from prior literature to recommendations for SARD. This limits the auditability of the paper and makes it difficult to assess precisely the evidentiary basis of its main contribution. This point should be addressed as an essential requirement through a short but explicit methodological clarification. The paper does not need to be turned into a systematic review, but it does need to provide the minimum transparency required for readers to understand how the proposal was built.
My second critical concern involves the proportionality between evidence and conclusions. The manuscript plausibly argues that short-term study abroad programs could enrich sustainability learning in SARD courses. However, in the conclusion and in several parts of the discussion, the language at times approaches a claim of demonstrated feasibility or effectiveness. Since the article does not implement a program, does not report intervention outcomes, does not compare cohorts, and does not provide original empirical evidence on student learning, that degree of closure goes beyond what the design can actually support. I do not see this as a fatal flaw in the idea itself, but rather as a problem of claim calibration. To make the article scientifically stronger, the conclusions should be reformulated as a conceptually grounded and plausible proposal rather than as an already validated instructional platform.
My third observation concerns the comprehensiveness of the review. The manuscript includes recent and relevant references and demonstrates familiarity with current debates on sustainability education, service-learning, and study abroad. However, the literature discussion is not fully exhaustive and is not analytically systematized to a sufficient degree. In particular, the transition from barriers to sustainability learning, to alternative pedagogies, to the adoption of the Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier framework depends more on a reasonable argumentative bridge than on an explicitly traceable synthesis. It would be very helpful to include a correspondence table or conceptual diagram showing which strands of the literature support each component of the proposal: topic selection, pre-departure orientation, instructor responsibilities, student responsibilities, and possible pedagogical strategies during the program. This would substantially strengthen the manuscript’s internal coherence.
My fourth observation concerns the delimitation of the context of applicability. The article proposes this model as a useful alternative for SARD courses in Asian universities and even suggests that intra-regional mobility may reduce costs. However, the proposal relies on strong institutional assumptions: active international partnerships, instructor capacity for cross-border coordination, access to funding or realistic fundraising opportunities, and adequate logistical support. The text mentions some of these factors, but it does not clearly delimit that the viability of the proposal depends on such enabling conditions. In my view, this does not require redesigning the paper, but it does require making the implementation assumptions explicit so that readers do not interpret the proposal as universally applicable.
My fifth important observation relates to the ethical and relational framing of the proposal. The manuscript states that no ethics statement is needed, which is understandable if the article is read strictly as a non-empirical piece without data collection. However, because the paper recommends forms of learning that may involve engagement with communities, local actors, and culturally sensitive environments, it would be valuable to distinguish between research ethics and ethics of pedagogical implementation. A brief expansion on this point would strengthen the manuscript, particularly regarding cultural preparation, relationships with host communities, and the prevention of extractive or instrumentalizing approaches to the local context.
Regarding the specific form questions, I consider the topic to be discussed partly in the context of the current literature: the coverage is relevant, current, and sufficient to support an initial proposal, but it is not yet fully comprehensive or methodologically transparent. I also consider the factual statements to be partly correct and adequately supported by citations: overall, the manuscript cites extensively, but some broader claims about applicability, expected benefits, or implementation conditions rely more on reasonable inference than on support directly demonstrated for the SARD context. The review is written in accessible language: the text is clear, readable, and generally well organized. Finally, the conclusions are partly appropriate in relation to the current research literature: the overall argumentative direction is valid, but the final wording should be moderated so as not to imply empirical validation where the article provides conceptual grounding only.
I believe the manuscript contains a valuable idea and a potentially useful contribution to International Relations pedagogy, but it still requires substantive revision before it can be considered fully scientifically sound. My editorial recommendation is major revisions. The priority actions that would most improve the paper are: (1) clearly define the manuscript as a conceptual or narrative-review-based contribution; (2) add a brief methodological note on literature selection and integration; (3) include a traceability mechanism linking literature to the proposed framework; (4) moderate the scope of the conclusions; and (5) specify more clearly the institutional and ethical conditions under which the proposal would be applicable.
Is the review written in accessible language?
Yes
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?
Partly
Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
NA
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Comment 1:
My first critical concern relates to the definition of the article type and to the traceability of its knowledge-construction strategy. The text presents itself as a “study,” but in practice it functions as a narrative review combined with a conceptual pedagogical design proposal. That is not a problem in itself; the problem is that this nature is not stated clearly enough. The manuscript does not report literature selection criteria, temporal scope, logic of source integration, or the procedure through which it moves from prior literature to recommendations for SARD. This limits the auditability of the paper and makes it difficult to assess precisely the evidentiary basis of its main contribution. This point should be addressed as an essential requirement through a short but explicit methodological clarification. The paper does not need to be turned into a systematic review, but it does need to provide the minimum transparency required for readers to understand how the proposal was built.
: CONCEPTUAL NARRATIVE REVIEW
I have clarified in several parts of the study that this is a ‘conceptual narrative review’ because it primarily advocates for the adoption of a specific conceptual pedagogical design. This is done in the abstract section (page 2), and in the third paragraph of page 3 (introduction section). The revisions in the latter:
“Drawing on relevant literature on experiential learning and faculty-led study abroad programs, this conceptual narrative review argues that short-term study abroad programs are relevant as a means to supplement what is taught in SARD classes. Considering the complex nature of the topic, which comprises dynamic tensions among Southeast Asian states due to haze pollution, the difficulty of balancing economic performances and environmental protection, as well as challenges of climate change, this study perceives that students could benefit from a short-term abroad program that helps them work on a specific case related to sustainability. As argued by many scholars in the past, experiential learning provides a unique learning atmosphere for students as they delve into the center of the community to observe by themselves, dynamics related to the subjects being taught in classrooms ( Below et al., 2021; Blewitt et al., 2021; Kolb, 1984; Pipitone, 2018; Strange & Gibson, 2017). As a means to bridge the conception of experiential learning in the SARD courses, this study is informed by Amy Below, Amanda Nydegger, and Mary Jane Parmentier’s ‘Experiential Learning through Faculty-led Study Abroad Programs’ and looks to implement the program conceptions of the study into SARD courses, by reviewing how experiential learning can respond to the unique challenges encountered in the teaching of SARD and sustainability.”
Comment 2:
My second critical concern involves the proportionality between evidence and conclusions. The manuscript plausibly argues that short-term study abroad programs could enrich sustainability learning in SARD courses. However, in the conclusion and in several parts of the discussion, the language at times approaches a claim of demonstrated feasibility or effectiveness. Since the article does not implement a program, does not report intervention outcomes, does not compare cohorts, and does not provide original empirical evidence on student learning, that degree of closure goes beyond what the design can actually support. I do not see this as a fatal flaw in the idea itself, but rather as a problem of claim calibration. To make the article scientifically stronger, the conclusions should be reformulated as a conceptually grounded and plausible proposal rather than as an already validated instructional platform.
I have revised the conclusion section to accommodate the concern of Reviewer 1. In the second and third paragraphs of the conclusion (pages 12 & 13), I clarify that what is being narrated within the article is a conceptually grounded piece and they are in the form of a pedagogical recommendation (rather than being adopted and implemented in the past). The revisions:
“This conceptual narrative review identifies the issue of teaching and learning sustainability topics within SARD courses as its main problem. Teaching sustainability presents distinct challenges, as students need to witness firsthand the issues undermining sustainability practices across the region. However, within existing teaching and learning systems, classroom teaching cannot offer direct experiences of the world regarding sustainability issues because it focuses on empirical and theoretical explanations. Therefore, drawing on relevant literature on experiential learning and faculty-led short-term study abroad programs, this study bridges the concept of experiential learning, as proposed by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier, and its potential for adoption in the teaching and learning process of SARD courses. As scholars have argued in the past, experiential learning provides students with a unique learning environment, allowing them to observe firsthand the sustainability issues faced by communities and discuss potential solutions with their peers.
Through the pedagogical proposal offered in this study, faculty-led study abroad programs, as mechanisms of experiential learning, potentially provide a feasible learning platform for students, considering several elements that the literature argues are important. Regarding the program’s outline, this study proposes several ideas for intertwining sustainability and Southeast Asia as the focus of the study abroad program. Although sustainability is a minor topic in an SARD course, the program offers the option to select several emerging sustainability challenges in Southeast Asia, which helps ignite students’ curiosity and understanding of the region. These include issues such as haze pollution, IUUF, and climate change, which are unique to the Southeast Asian context. As the literature also shows, it is essential to incorporate topics related to cultural awareness within the substantive content, considering that the study abroad program will take place in a country with which students may not be familiar.”
Comment 3:
My third observation concerns the comprehensiveness of the review. The manuscript includes recent and relevant references and demonstrates familiarity with current debates on sustainability education, service-learning, and study abroad. However, the literature discussion is not fully exhaustive and is not analytically systematized to a sufficient degree. In particular, the transition from barriers to sustainability learning, to alternative pedagogies, to the adoption of the Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier framework depends more on a reasonable argumentative bridge than on an explicitly traceable synthesis. It would be very helpful to include a correspondence table or conceptual diagram showing which strands of the literature support each component of the proposal: topic selection, pre-departure orientation, instructor responsibilities, student responsibilities, and possible pedagogical strategies during the program. This would substantially strengthen the manuscript’s internal coherence.
I agree that the fourth section would benefit from a clearer sequence that better represents which strands of the literature support each component of the proposal. However, as shown in section 4, they are divided into three main sub-themes, each discussing different discourses for its sub-section. In the revisions, I clarify this in the first paragraph of section 4 (page 8) to show readers that there is relevant literature to consider before bridging the ideas of experiential learning. The revised paragraph:
“The ideas introduced by Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier will be integrated into the teaching and learning process of SARD courses within IR programs. In doing so, the following will be structured as follows. First, it provides a recommendation for a program’s outline, aiming to intertwine the fundamentals of sustainability with Southeast Asian contexts for an abroad program. Following this is an elaboration of the instructors’ responsibilities and what is expected from a participating student. By providing such guidelines, this study benefits instructors who seek to adopt experiential learning and integrate creative pedagogies with service-learning in their teaching and learning practices. In each subsection, the section explores relevant literature that helps build the case for the potential success of adopting the pedagogical proposals related to sustainability learning. ”
Comment 4:
My fourth observation concerns the delimitation of the context of applicability. The article proposes this model as a useful alternative for SARD courses in Asian universities and even suggests that intra-regional mobility may reduce costs. However, the proposal relies on strong institutional assumptions: active international partnerships, instructor capacity for cross-border coordination, access to funding or realistic fundraising opportunities, and adequate logistical support. The text mentions some of these factors, but it does not clearly delimit that the viability of the proposal depends on such enabling conditions. In my view, this does not require redesigning the paper, but it does require making the implementation assumptions explicit so that readers do not interpret the proposal as universally applicable.
I address Reviewer 1’s concerns in the first paragraph of page 10. It shows that the strong institutional assumptions (regarding partnerships and feasibility) are strongly determinant of how soon the instructor can confirm those points. Therefore, I revised the narrative to show that these are enabling conditions, and instructors need to consider this strongly. The revised paragraph:
“As the responsible individual for the program, the instructor would then need to identify potential partner universities to conduct the short-term study abroad program. Instructors should acknowledge that their universities have established partnerships with other higher education institutions in the past, with some of these partnerships remaining active. Therefore, instructors should be able to identify host university options, taking into account that a particular higher education institution may have expertise and specialize in one of the themes the instructors wish to emphasize in the study abroad program. Nevertheless, an instructor should be able to weigh various considerations when determining the host country and university. For example, in a SARD course, instructors should first consider Southeast Asian Universities as the primary option if it is technically possible to make that long journey. As SARD courses are mainly offered in Asian higher education institutions, the bearing costs are not expected to be excessive. Instructors should address this point before the idea is introduced, as it will determine the proposal's viability depending on the enabling conditions.”
Comment 5:
My fifth important observation relates to the ethical and relational framing of the proposal. The manuscript states that no ethics statement is needed, which is understandable if the article is read strictly as a non-empirical piece without data collection. However, because the paper recommends forms of learning that may involve engagement with communities, local actors, and culturally sensitive environments, it would be valuable to distinguish between research ethics and ethics of pedagogical implementation. A brief expansion on this point would strengthen the manuscript, particularly regarding cultural preparation, relationships with host communities, and the prevention of extractive or instrumentalizing approaches to the local context.
I agree with this statement. Therefore, I revised the last paragraph on page 10 to discuss that, in certain circumstances, ethical clearance may be required by the host university. This is especially true if students aim to conduct research or a project on sensitive topics. The revised paragraph:
“If instructors are looking to adopt a more interdisciplinary approach to their studies, perhaps examining innovative learning systems could provide the solution they need. As Below’s study argued, “[…] interdisciplinary approaches can facilitate rich conversations and learning experiences and attract students” ( Below, Nydegger and Parmentier, 2021, p. 83). Therefore, it would be beneficial to refer to past studies on alternative methods in teaching and learning sustainability, such as through problem-based learning, community-based learning, or quizzes ( Below et al., 2021; Bremner & Steed, 2025; Carrió Llach & Llerena Bastida, 2023; Howell, 2021; Nguyen et al., 2024; Shah et al., 2024). Meanwhile, instructors could also explore more established teaching and learning methods that are commonly used in experiential learning, such as service learning. As the literature indicates, service learning is a pedagogy that can enhance students’ awareness of a specific topic ( Ribeiro et al., 2023; Álvarez-Vanegas, Ramani, and Volante, 2024; Aramburuzabala, 2025). In the context of SARD, students can gain an understanding of sustainability by exploring the community through specific projects that expose them to real-life sustainability phenomena in the Southeast Asian context. Instructors should also be aware of the potential need of ethical clearance from their host university, if it is needed in the process of researching or conducting projects on sensitive topics. ”