Dear referee,

Many thanks for the positive and important comments for our manuscript! We are happy to hear that you see the relevance and importance of our work in the context of the journal. 

The conference-based course as a learning context is truly rather unique in a sense that it really challenges the students to reflect on their own geoscience expertise, and possibly their professional identity, that is deeply connected to their sense of belonging. Exploring the learning context through the lens of transformative learning allowed us to identify possible dilemmas and the process of their resolution, highlighting the role of facilitation in such a learning context.

Minor comments:

REFEREE COMMENT:

- Lines 64 to 67: "It is evident that geoscientists have a role in informing and engaging in climate action, but competencies supporting this role, such as systems thinking, normative thinking or interpersonal skills, are not necessarily widely incorporated into higher education of geosciences (Riuttanen et al. 2021)." 

I think the fact that scientists working on climate change have no training in communication their complex results to a wide audience is a very important topic here. The role of scientific organisation, such as the IPCC, as a bridge between scientific community and policy makers and stake holders could be mentioned as a potential bridge. For popular science, scientists are also not alone and many organisations or associations help bridge the knowledge gap.

REPLY:

Thank you for the comment and highlighting the existing bridges for communication of geoscience to the public. You are right that there are channels already available and people dedicated to science communication within various organisations. It is important to acknowledge those structures.

We will add the following sentence to the mentioned section of the manuscript: ‘Structures, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hold an important position in supporting communication of geosciences to the public and policy making, and working as a bridge between the science community and stakeholders.’

____

REFEREE COMMENT:

- Lines 81 and forward: There is a 1.1  but no 1.2. This section looks a little bit like a "Methods" section, in the sense that it explains how the study was built.

REPLY:

The intention of this section is to describe the course as the setting of our study, and therefore we decided to place it under the introduction. It is true that the graph of the course schedule also includes the steps of the study, referring to methodology. However, we consider it a bridge to the next section. 

For clarity, we will remove the numbering from the title of the section.

____

REFEREE COMMENT:

- Lines 455 to 457: "They saw their future role as Arctic researchers with responsibility over how science should be done: taking people into account, for example by listening to differing voices; being open to various ways of knowing; and assessing their own and surrounding normativities critically."

I wonder if any of the interview targets why they think so few climate change expert actually take these steps currently?  Or society in general.

REPLY:

This is an interesting question! The views of the students on why these steps are rarely taken was not directly discussed in our interviews. However, it would be interesting to further investigate the views and attitudes of geoscience researchers and students towards responsible scientific practice, climate justice and social sustainability.

All the best,

Joula Siponen

On behalf of all co-authors

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your time and effort! We are happy to hear that you see the value of our work. Thank you for the insightful comments and suggestions for improvements. We have addressed them all below and will edit the manuscript accordingly for the final version.

Specific comments:

1)    The Introduction is well-written and provides the necessary information about the topic. In lines 52-53, the emphasis on a transdisciplinary approach is well-founded, however, the manuscript could benefit from clarifying how transdisciplinarity is operationalized in practice.

OUR REPLY >> We will add the following sentence in the manuscript: ‘Transdisciplinarity in climate education is often operationalised in, for example, problem- and/or phenomena-based learning where students are exposed to real-world problem contexts and events.’

2)    Paragraph in lines 68-74: Although the authors state what they do in their study, this does not in itself suffice as a rationale for the importance of the study; it is merely procedural. That is, it tells what the authors are doing, but not why it matters. To be a solid rationale, the authors should move beyond description and state the importance of the problem, explain how the study may affect the current situation and the relevant research approaches that are being used at the moment and state the originality and contribution of the study.

OUR REPLY >> Our work aims to open a new strand of discussion on sense of belonging and transformative learning specifically in the context of environmental and geoscience higher education. That is highly needed as future experts and professionals in climate and environmental change have been shown to require reflexive capacity and transformative competence. A sentence will be added to the beginning and to the end of the paragraph to better justify the importance.

3)    I would strongly advise the authors to reword the first research question with greater clarity and to break the second question into two questions as the second research question should not be that broad.

OUR REPLY >> We will clarify the first question as follows: “What elements of the transformative learning process can be seen in the students’ experience, and what aspects of the students transformed?”. The second question we will divide into two parts.

4)    In paragraph 78-80, the information should be more analytical.

OUR REPLY >> We will formulate the paragraph to have more of an analytical tone to better reflect the research process.

5)    Paragraph in lines 109-114 provides key information about the transformative component of the course and as such it should be much more analytical; it should account for how exactly the course was transformative. Therefore, very small sentences should be avoided and a more explanatory way of expression should be adopted.

OUR REPLY >> The course was not designed specifically with transformative learning in mind and our main interest was to study whether such learning can be spotted. In this section we wanted to compare the pedagogical setting to what has been recently suggested as pedagogical elements that can support transformative learning. Therefore, we hesitate to say here explicitly what makes the course transformative but instead speculate the suitability of the course design for such learning to emerge. We will clarify this in the text and organise the elements as a list with widened explanations.

6)    There are some concerns about the structure of the paper; it would be more suitable to place Section 1.1 (with the right adjustments) within the Methodology section and not before the literature section. I would also advise omitting “Case” from the heading of the section.

OUR REPLY >> We will make changes accordingly as a similar comment was received from the first referee. We will rename the chapters so that section 3 will be called Methodology, and under it 3.1 “Arctic Circle” course, 3.2 Materials, and 3.3 Analysis process.

__________________

7)    In addition, a more suitable heading for section “2 Theoretical framing” would be “Theoretical background”.

OUR REPLY >> We will change the text according to your suggestion.

8)    The learning outcomes in lines 127-129 ought to be explained more and worded with greater clarity.

OUR REPLY >> We will further clarify what is meant with each outcome and list them more clearly as themes.

9)    In the same section (Theoretical background), it is necessary to improve the coherence and flow between paragraphs. At times, transitions are abrupt, and the logical progression of ideas is unclear. Strengthening the internal linking between paragraphs will help guide the reader through the argument more effectively. Additionally, some key claims would be more convincing if supported by further elaboration or evidence. I also recommend conducting a more extensive literature review and add more sources.

OUR REPLY >> We will edit the verbiage to highlight the linkages between the paragraphs. We utilised a suitable theoretical frame for our analysis and study and aimed to introduce the topic through that framing, rather than conducted a literature review on transformative learning extensively. We will clarify in the manuscript that the primary source of framing was a review by Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth (2020).

_________________

10)    In the Materials and Methods section, given the very low number of participants, it is necessary to explain how thematic saturation was achieved and ensured in the semi-structured interviews before and after the course.

OUR REPLY >> Our methodological emphasis was on representing the perspectives of the study cohort (course participants) rather than seeking a thematic saturation per se – thus aiming at depth rather than width in the material. We will address the potential limitations of the sample (and of course the study in general) in the methodological chapter and in a dedicated paragraph of limitations in the Discussion chapter.

11)    Regarding reflections, although they should be included, it is necessary to explain how they were systematically collected and analyzed (as for a recognized qualitative method).

OUR REPLY >> The written reflections were part of the mandatory course assignments, and the teacher of the course shared them with the other authors after they were submitted by the students (as declared to the students when introducing the study in the online session prior to the event). Reflections were then analysed together with the interview transcripts following qualitative content analysis process assisted by Atlas.ti program. We will clarify this in the manuscript.

12)    It is concerning that although the first interviews were conducted in person, the in-depth post-course interviews were conducted in Zoom. As in-person interviews allow for richer non-verbal communication and a more natural conversational flow ensuring the understanding of the topic, Zoom interviews may limit observation or introduce technical distractions, possibly influencing the depth of reflection or emotional expression. This is an important flaw and authors should explain how the mode of communication might have shaped participants' responses.

OUR REPLY >> As the students and the researchers were located in different countries, online interviews were the most sensible option post-course. The distance can also be beneficial to the level of reflection as the students may feel more comfortable to speak candidly online. This technical detail was not seen to influence the communication and thus the results of the study significantly. We will shortly reflect this in the manuscript.

13)    In addition, in the beginning of the section, it is necessary to state explicitly the type of interviews that were conducted before and after the course and to state the reasons for choosing these methods and most importantly explain how these methods served better the research aim.

OUR REPLY >> Qualitative and explorative methodology was seen relevant for gaining new insight on the students’ personal learning experiences. Semi-structured interviews in-situ and post-fact, supported by written reflections provided rich and detailed data. We will add a more clear and explicit statement.

14)    There should also be a methodological framing of the approach used to analyze interview data. In addition, it is necessary to explain how coding was done and if a framework was used and how themes were exactly developed.

OUR REPLY >> Thank you for the comment! We aim to explain the process more clearly and will reference qualitative content analysis in general by Bryman (2016) and for the reappearances in grouping the findings as suggested by Krippendorff (2019). 

______________

15)    In the beginning of the Discussion, it is necessary to state concisely whether and how the study managed to answer the research questions. The Discussion could also provide some critique on previous relevant studies and point at how the study challenges or advances the approaches that have been followed until now.

OUR REPLY >> We will include a clearer statement of our reflections on the success of the research design, highlighted key findings, and how the research questions were answered in the beginning of the section. 

16)    The paper would be further improved if the authors provided a separate Conclusions section where the authors will summarize key conclusions, reiterate the significance of the study, state study limitations and suggest directions for future studies in this research field.

OUR REPLY >> Thank you for the suggestion! We consider the last paragraph of the Results and Discussion chapter to be the conclusive chapter of our submission—and to stylistically function as is, without a dedicated subheading. We hope this is a satisfactory way of structuring the manuscript and to be in accordance with the guidelines of the journal. 

17)    I would also advise the authors to perform language editing to ensure accuracy and clarity and to avoid any typos both in the paper and the Appendices.

OUR REPLY >> We have planned to conduct a full language check by a native speaker before the final submission of the manuscript.

18)    After revising the paper, it would be beneficial to revise also the Abstract so that it becomes more engaging and accurate.

OUR REPLY >> We will edit the abstract according to your recommendations and comments.

____________________

Technical Comments:

OUR REPLY >> All the technical suggestions have been considered and changes will be made accordingly.

Many thanks again for your important suggestions! 

Best regards

on behalf of all the authors

Joula Siponen