[version 2; 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 conceptual narrative review 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.
The revised manuscript covers several main concerns voiced by the reviewers. These include substantive revisions to the article's form as a conceptual narrative review, methodological notes on the literature selection and integration, traceability of mechanisms linking the literature to the proposed framework, moderation of the scope of the conclusions, and clarification of ethical conditions regarding experiential learning.
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 is offered as a single elective course; in others, it is part of a broader IR topic. For example, in a course on regional dynamics of IR, a course on SARD may include a topic on how sustainability has been achieved through regional collaborative efforts within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as well as the tensions that have arisen among the states in 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 arises immediately. 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 to adopt alternative pedagogies that replace the stagnant, passive learning that tends to prevail in classrooms. Therefore, although students gain greater knowledge of sustainability concerns in the Southeast Asian region by the end of the course, the course does not offer direct experience with global sustainability issues, as its focus tends to be on empirical and theoretical explanations. This is a concern, given 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 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 (
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, social, economic, and environmental factors are interconnected 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 method” (
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 noted in multiple studies on community service programs 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 “[…] fostering civic responsibility” (
The last discourse on service-learning encompasses most studies on sustainability learning methods. Through a service-learning pedagogical approach, students can enhance their knowledge of the SDGs and of practices that promote sustainable community development (
Specific studies would differ only in the points investigated in relation to service-learning. In a 2024 study, academics traced the processes leading to the substantial shift in the curriculum in sustainable development studies, which has now introduced more experiential learning methods (
But what about teaching and learning sustainability within a different curriculum, specifically SARD courses in IR? Unfortunately, the processes are not straightforward, as there has been no academic inquiry that specifically addresses the various contexts and challenges associated with raising awareness of sustainability topics and concerns among IR students in Southeast Asia. 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 prior studies that address the ‘how’ of learning sustainability within the context of SARD courses under IR programs, this study advances 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 aims to outline a program, comprising the program design and curriculum. Perhaps the most significant task is to determine the destination and duration of a short-term abroad program as an experiential learning opportunity for students (
In addition to determining the substantive coverage of experiential learning, instructors should 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 concerns to the technical aspects of travel. Regarding accommodation, in-city transportation, and airport pickup, these technical aspects may 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 burdened with multiple roles in the program. Not only are instructors expected to lead the effort in determining the program outline, but they are also expected to act as health professionals for 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 impact of service-learning on students’ learning experiences (
Finally, several key points regarding students’ responsibilities need to be highlighted. Before their departure, one significant barrier that students will need to overcome is the cost of the program. As a means to enhance real-life skills (
Another issue students need to be aware of is preparing with the relevant materials for the program. In the pre-departure program, students must engage with the subject matter and culturally relevant topics covered to be 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 to 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. 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.
The substantive coverage of an SARD course encompasses a wide range of empirical issues across Southeast Asia. A typical SARD course would begin by covering the history of the region, the complex political dynamics of the member states, efforts toward regional integration, and the contemporary challenges faced by 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 sustainability-related topics in the Southeast Asian context that will serve as the basis for teaching and learning in the 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 on the teaching and learning platforms of a study abroad program related to SARD is 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 sustainability with 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 reviewing the potential themes for the study abroad program, instructors would need to take on several responsibilities to ensure the program’s success. Before the students’ actual departure, instructors must first determine the timing of the program (
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.
Meanwhile, during the study abroad program, instructors are also responsible for the program's technical arrangements and the pedagogical strategy employed. 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 could provide the solution they need. 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 large number of empirical cases related to the Southeast Asian region can be challenging for students when presented in a static 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 fully engage in this active learning approach. First relates to the costs associated with attending the program. As shown in the previous subsection, program lengths vary significantly, and, as recommended, they should not exceed a duration that would impose an unnecessary financial burden on participants. 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, fundraising can take creative forms, such as engaging with diverse stakeholders. As the study abroad program fulfills the learning outcomes of the SARD course, students could consider engaging with stakeholders of interest in Southeast Asia who may be connected to sustainability issues. If, for example, the selected experiential learning model 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 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.
Beyond costs, students’ responsibilities also relate to the cultures and academic subjects taught in the experiential learning program. In terms of culture, instructors are responsible for introducing differences in cultural customs adopted in host countries. Nevertheless, students will need to undertake independent learning to delve deeper into the cultures, given that, in the case of service-learning, for example, students’ responsibilities would include communicating directly with society (
Considering the cultural and academic preparation students need, their participation during the actual study abroad program would be well-prepared. Therefore, whatever form experiential learning takes, students are able to anticipate cultural differences 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 prior literature on student-centered learning, students' active participation in the learning process enables them to develop several lifelong skills and helps them cope with future uncertainties (
Experiential learning through study abroad programs has the potential to achieve the learning outcomes of SARD courses in IR programs in a more engaging and distinctive way for students. As Below, Nydegger, and Parmentier mentioned in
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 cultural awareness topics into the substantive content, given 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, including how long it will last and when it will be offered to 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 timing and destination, instructors should also consider the technical responsibilities of conducting this type of program, which typically require them to arrange accommodations and transportation (although these tasks can be delegated to a third-party service). Lastly, instructors are responsible for determining the best pedagogical strategy to be employed throughout the program, as well as for 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.
I thank the author for revising the manuscript and for providing detailed responses to the previous round of review. The revised version of “Faculty-Led Study Abroad Programs and Learning Sustainability: A Southeast Asian Context” represents a substantive improvement over the original submission. In particular, I appreciate that the article is now more clearly framed as a conceptual narrative review, that the conclusions have been partially moderated, that institutional enabling conditions are more explicitly acknowledged, and that an initial ethical consideration has been added regarding the possible need for ethical clearance when students conduct research or projects on sensitive topics.
Overall, I consider that the manuscript has moved toward a clearer and more defensible contribution to International Relations pedagogy, particularly in relation to the teaching of sustainability in Southeast Asian Regional Dynamics courses. The manuscript remains relevant because it addresses a specific curricular problem: the difficulty of teaching complex sustainability issues—such as haze pollution, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and climate change—through predominantly lecture-based approaches. The article also retains practical value by organizing the proposal around three main components: the selection of regionally relevant sustainability topics, instructors’ responsibilities, and students’ active participation.
My remaining reservations are now more limited than in the first round. I do not think the manuscript needs to be transformed into an empirical study or a systematic review. However, several focused revisions would still make the conceptual contribution more transparent, traceable, and scientifically proportionate.
First, the clarification of the manuscript as a “conceptual narrative review” addresses an important part of the previous concern, but the article would still benefit from a short methodological note explaining how the narrative review was constructed. The manuscript does not need a PRISMA protocol or a systematic-search design. However, it should briefly indicate which bodies of literature were integrated, what general criteria guided the selection of key sources, and how the author moved from those sources to the proposed pedagogical components. This would strengthen the auditability of the argument without changing the conceptual nature of the paper.
Second, the author’s response to the concern about traceability is reasonable, but still not fully sufficient. Section 4 is now better organized into three subthemes, which improves readability. Nevertheless, the relationship between the literature reviewed and the specific component of the proposal remains partly implicit. I recommend adding a brief table or conceptual diagram linking each component of the proposal—topic selection, pre-departure orientation, instructor responsibilities, student responsibilities, pedagogical strategies, and re-entry orientation—to the strands of literature that support it and to the type of inference being made. This would not impose an excessive methodological burden, but it would allow readers to verify more clearly how the documentary review is translated into specific pedagogical recommendations for Southeast Asian Regional Dynamics courses.
Third, the added reference to ethical clearance is a useful improvement, but the ethical framing could still be strengthened. The manuscript correctly indicates that the present conceptual review did not generate or analyze primary data. However, the future pedagogical implementation being proposed may involve engagement with communities, local actors, and culturally sensitive environments. I therefore suggest distinguishing explicitly between the absence of a need for ethical approval for the present article and the ethical conditions required for future implementation. These conditions should include cultural preparation, consent or contextual authorization when appropriate, coordination with host partners, prevention of extractive engagement, student safety protocols, and referral mechanisms for mental-health or culture-shock-related concerns.
Fourth, the conclusions have been moderated compared with the previous version, but some formulations still risk suggesting a stronger level of effectiveness than the design can demonstrate. Since the article does not implement a program, compare cohorts, measure learning outcomes, or provide original empirical evidence, claims about the impact of faculty-led study abroad programs should remain conditional. I recommend replacing formulations that imply direct achievement of competences with expressions such as “may support,” “could contribute,” “may provide opportunities,” or “requires future empirical assessment.” This is a matter of claim calibration rather than a need for new data.
Fifth, the scope of applicability should be made more explicit. The manuscript now recognizes that institutional partnerships and feasibility are relevant conditions, but it still appears somewhat optimistic regarding costs and students’ ability to finance participation through fundraising. The proposal would be stronger if it clarified that implementation depends on scholarships, subsidies, active partnerships with host universities, administrative support, insurance, safety protocols, instructor capacity, and equitable access criteria. This would prevent the proposal from being interpreted as universally applicable or as relying primarily on students’ financial initiative.
Sixth, I recommend refining the description of the instructor’s role in relation to mental health and emergencies. It is appropriate for the manuscript to acknowledge that international programs may generate stress, culture shock, or support needs. However, instructors should not be framed as “health professionals” or as substitutes for qualified professionals. A more precise formulation would indicate that instructors should be familiar with emergency protocols, provide first-line support, coordinate with institutional services, and refer students to qualified professionals when necessary. This distinction would better protect both students and instructors.
Finally, I do not identify concerns regarding equations, quantitative tables, analytical figures, or numerical results, because the manuscript does not include those components and its conceptual nature does not require them. Precisely for that reason, a conceptual traceability table would be sufficient to improve internal verifiability. I also recommend checking minor issues of terminological and editorial consistency, especially the use of IUU/IUUF, some cited author names—for example, Parry/Metzger and van Ewijk—and a few grammatical formulations that could be adjusted to improve academic precision.
I consider that the author has responded reasonably to the main concerns raised in the first review round. The remaining issues are important but focused, and they can be addressed through clarification, moderation of language, targeted improvement of conceptual traceability, and a more precise delimitation of implementation conditions. My editorial recommendation is therefore approval with reservations, subject to minor revisions aimed at strengthening methodological transparency, ethical delimitation, proportionality of conclusions, and the applicability conditions of the proposal.
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.
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. ”