Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1. Relevance of the work  
   
   The topic is relevant and the study is of interest and makes contributions in this field because of the importance of working at these ages. 
   
   2. Theoretical foundation and bibliographic review 
   
   The theoretical framework can be improved , and in the first section of the introduction it is necessary to establish the role of Education for Sustainability, which not only tries to learn about ecology and biodiversity, current trends in this field are towards “acting sustainably”, there are abundant bibliography in this same magazine on it, that is advisable to consult. This aspect is related to the keywords , because Are Education for Sustainability and Environmental Education different ? , if it refers to two different fields, it must be justified and otherwise substantiated withwhat is currently understood by an Environmental Education oriented towards sustainability. 
   
   It would be desirable to show the effects of climate change on species extinction with the corresponding dates (see n are the reports of the IPCC). Also in the relationship between food and consumption and the influence of the current socioeconomic model. 
   
   In 1.2 h numerous aspects known to and it is not necessary to develop such detail could be reduced this section and complete the previous one . 
   
   The following bibliography could be consulted. 
   
   Mogensen , F., & Schnack , K. (2010). The action competence approach and the 'new' discourses of education for sustainable development , competence and quality criteria . Environmental education research , 16 (1), 59-74.  
   
   Kopnina , H .; Meijers , (2014) F. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Exploring Theoretical and Practical Challenges . International Journal of Sustainability Higher Education , Vol. 15, pp. 188–207.  
   
   Wiek , A., Withycombe , L., & Redman , CL (2011). Key competencies in sustainability : a reference framework for academic program development . Sustainability science , 6 (2), 203-218.  
   
   3. Methodology  
   
   Were experts consulted to establish the criteria for selecting the questions, or were they elaborated from the literature review ? 
   
   It would not hurt to briefly give the test data, even if they are already known. 
   
     
   
   4. Discussion and conclusions 
   
   The conclusions when reviewing the theoretical framework could be more rigorous and highlight the most relevant contributions of the work in relation to the objective and that are commented mixed in the discussion , making explicit the educational implications from the framework of  Environmental Education for sustainability. 
   
     
   
   5. Drafting  
   
   The text except the justification is clear and understandable, as well as the abstract . 
   
   By the way, the Balearic Islands are not from Italy, they are from Spain. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for the research is really interesting and useful work for experts/teachers in science education.

There are not a lot of bibliography about kindergarten children on this topic.

I would like to point out some recommendations and point to improve/clarified: 

• Why talk about PERCEPTION, instead of conceptions, thinkings, etc.? Across the whole text use different terminologies. It is important to select just one and clarified the meaning. Normally when we are exploring "ideas" use perception and when we are talking about the environment or topic relating to this. Add further bibliography about other studies that use perceptions in the same sense that yours.
• Literature Review: There is plenty of bibliography about the importance of knowing or explore conceptions/perception in students (primary students, secondary and even university level) about the environment, ecosystem,..., I think is important compare or contract the difficulties that have students groups about the view of environment and ecosystem
• Participants. This point can be clearer if add a table with the number of children, ages, and origins.
• Correct: line 132 Baleares Island (Italy): Belong to SPAIN no Italy
• As limitation: Although I think this study is really interesting one of their weakness is the own "topic research".According to knowledge progression, when we teach about our environment first we identified the main elements in nature (living elements and non-living elements) (0-6 ages) second step is classified elements (7-10/12 years) and the 3 step is identified relations between different groups (12 ages). Bearing in mind this, for this reason, kindergarten children have "problems" to perceive the ecosystem from a holistic and systemic view. We can find the same problem or even the same ecosystem view in the prospective teacher students. Might be can reflect on this point in the conclusion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, it was a pleasure to read.

The aim of this paper was to study the knowledge of kindergarten children (5-6 years old) in Norway about the interdependence of organisms. More specifically, six organisms were selected for the study representing different trophic levels of food webs and providing different ecosystems services, and 56 children participated. This study makes two specific contributions: 1) The authors demonstrated that children as young as 5-6 years old can gain understanding of interdependencies in nature. 2) The authors identified which organisms have been neglected in the educational context, that is plants and fungi, and they explain that this should be addressed.

The authors are sensitive to the kindergarten children’s understanding, and they offer some interesting points of discussion in relation to this. The finding that the ecological roles of plants and fungi are under-recognised by the kindergarten children of this study is relevant and gives important information to adjust education programs.

The ecological sensitivity of the authors is noteworthy. The authors embed the need to understand interdependencies in nature within the context of counteracting the ecological crisis, and they emphasise the intrinsic value of living organisms. However, there is also a contradiction evident in this: While the authors emphasise the need to recognise the intrinsic value of organisms (line 12 in the abstract and line 417 in the conclusion), there is no discussion of whether or not the students recognise any intrinsic value except for one reference made in line 394, and the purpose of the study also does not mention intrinsic value. Instead, the focus in the manuscript is on the instrumental dimension of ecosystem service, and on the children being able to rank the selected organisms.

Also in lines 111-113, the authors state: “"Nevertheless, evaluating the importance of species is challenging and will always remain incomplete, because of limited information on species interaction and unexpected benefits for humans [26]." This reflects an instrumental view rather than a view that intrinsically values species. This contradiction is also reflected in the research questions (lines 160-162), and it needs to be resolved.

Therefore, it appears there are two or three research questions missing in Section 1.5 (lines 160-162).

The authors list the following questions:

(1) How do young children rank the (relative) importance of living organisms?

(2) Are there differences in ranking between sexes?

(3) Are there differences in ranking between kindergarten profiles (ordinary vs. farm)?

The missing questions relate to whether the children recognise interdependencies and how do they conceptualise them, and whether they recognise the intrinsic value of the organisms. These questions also need to be more specifically addressed in the discussion.

Furthermore, the results and discussion refer to ideas the children hold about the organisms. The relevant research question should also be added.

An explanation for why these particular questions are included is also required.

It seems to me that the authors are caught up in a dissonance that is reflected in the differences between education for sustainability (EfS) and education for sustainable development (ESD). ESD has been criticised for being anthropocentric in focus and for representing an instrumental worldview (e.g. Kopnina 2020 doi:10.3390/educsci10100261, Kopnina 2012 doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.658028, Selby 2006 doi:10.1080/03098260600717471). (Unfortunately, the majority of writers conflate EfS and ESD, including Hedefalk et al. (2015) cited by the authors of this manuscript in line 42.)

Talking about ecosystem services is the hallmark of the sustainable development discourse. Talking about intrinsic value and grand concepts such as interdependency is a hallmark of EfS. The authors have to clarify for themselves where they stand and what they want to achieve with their study.

I also notice that the manuscript has been submitted for the Special Issue "Young Children, Nature, and Sustainability: Cultivating a Foundation for Contributions to Sustainability through Nature Experiences and Pedagogies". Is there a need to better align the manuscript with the aims of this Special Issue?

 

A few other points:

The study described in this manuscript seems to be part of the same study discussed in Melis et al. 2020. Perhaps that should be explained, and the different foci of the different studies outlined.

In terms of the figures: All figures are useful and add to the manuscript. Figure 1 is a nice conceptual representation, and seeing the nature of the images used for the interviews (Figure 2) is helpful. The visuals accompanying the statistical analysis are useful, and Figure 4 is an interesting visual representation that adds to the manuscript.

As an aside, but perhaps not unimportant: Maybe there is opportunity in the manuscript (perhaps after line 86) to reference other little known possibilities to excite teachers and students about fungi: The ability of fungi to use enzymes to break down foreign substances (and thus assist in cleaning up our “toxic mess” which in turn supports ecological functioning by repairing what has been broken), and that they can be used to make things, such as a “living” canoe (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fungus-answer-climate-change-student-who-grew-mushroom-canoe-says-n1185401).

 

There are a few minor issues which are listed next with line references:

Line 40: unethical (not “very unethical”)

Line 44: future generations (delete “the”)

Line 49: to take into account (not “in account”)

Line 52: synthesize

Lines 59-62: Issues of grammar and clarity need to be addressed.

Lines 67-68: Sounds a little awkward but I understand why “apart from humans” has been added in brackets. Perhaps it can be simplified as follows: “To sustain life on earth, plants are some of the most important organisms.”

Lines 73-75: This sentence should go somewhere else maybe? Or it needs to be linked in better.

Line 77: parasitic

Lines 96-97: “From an ecological point of view, herbivores are not strictly necessary for life on Earth.”  Is this statement correct?  It needs to be referenced and/or toned down.

Lines 122-123: “They found that younger children were focusing more on individual organisms rather than populations during interviews.”   This is an important citation. A lot of work is being done in the field of compassionate conservation to draw attention to the individual animal rather than the species for better animal protection, understanding, empathy and ultimately better conservation decisions. So perhaps it would be a good educational aim to keep cultivating this natural tendency in children’s thinking about other animals as individuals.

Line 126: four year old

Lines 131-132: check grammar

Line 148: delete “themselves”

Line 149: “and” instead of “since”

Line 150: delete “by the staff”

Line 176: Explain briefly “Green Flag”

Lines 177-178: It is not clear what “main data” refers to. Perhaps simplify: “56 children between five and six years old who were in their final year of kindergarten participated in this study.”

Line 179: “28 were boys”

Linea 183-184: check grammar

Line 187: Full stop after “in June 2019”

Lines 199 and 200: “thought” not “though”

Line 235: years (plural)

Line 290: edible

Line 297-301, 321-322: nice observation

Line 318: “amongst others” (delete “the”)

Line 357: “Darth Vader effect”  :-)

Lines 396:  thriving

Lines 412-418:  The issue of plant and fungi blindness should be added to the conclusions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf