Review Reports - Shaping Pro-Environmental Attitudes through Higher Education—A Preliminary Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attached file for comment's details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Although this article is interesting but some corrections are needed for publication. Some of mandatory comments given below in order to process it further process.

Thank you for your positive opinion about the article and your remarks. Below, after a remark with the number, our response will be given in italic.

Line 10-13: Please rewrite it again with background according to the study. Authors should mention only carefully explaining all aspects.

Done – see changes

Line 22: Of the studied predictors for ecological worldview? Please correlate accoording to the design study

Done – sorry for not precise wording

Line 45: What stands (p. 8)?. Is it is unit of specific description?

Sorry – it was given before the quotation, and this reference is not in accordance with the journal reference style – it was changed for: [5] (p.9) – see point 4 (below)

Line 48: [6] (p. 9). Inappropriate reference style. Please follow the journal instructions for references in Introduction and all other sections.

It is a very untypical and different to APA, but this is the local reference style: “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).”

Line 152-156: Such a starting point is appropriate for our study, which postulates that any educational activity in higher education can shape competencies, some of which are part (or all) of the competencies for ESD. This approach was common in the late twentieth century, when universities did not have separate programs geared toward sustainability-specific competencies and the move toward separate ESD-oriented programs was only postulated and described as experimental [29].

Please corelate the ESD-oriented programs acoording the curent era.

Done.

See there:

This distinction is sometimes described as follows: “EDS can be integrated in higher education vertically and horizontally. The former integrates sustainability though spe-cific sustainability-related courses while the latter includes sustainability within the regular courses in the study plan” [24] ( p. 339). The horizontal inclusion of sustaina-bility awareness-supporting activities could be done as an effect of political decisions made by university [27] or state authorities [39], or – as in our case – as a side effect of competencies acquired by students at university. Several authors have tried to as-sess if university studies (ones not directed towards ecological problems) increase the level of SD competencies [23, 27] or create a pro-ecological worldview [25], but – to our knowledge – this is the first attempt to check if the level of acquired in this way SD competencies correlates with pro-ecological worldview.

And in the introduction

Some previous studies showed that even stand-alone sustainability courses [21, 26] and education oriented for sustainability [22-25] are only partially successful in changing the attitudes of students. Other research assessed students’ sustainability competencies [16, 22, 23, 27] orchecked if students are aware that the universityis at-tempting to build a sustainability orientation, and if so – is the scale of these activities correlated with students’ pro-ecological attitudes [21, 24-26]. Several studies argue [10, 28, 29], that active learning methodologies, which are commonly used in modern business schools, are tools which are appropriate for developing critical thinking and sustainable attitudes in students.

Line 297: Please mentioned the heading as Study Design.

Done.

Line 534-546: Please merge both graphs as both reflect same aspects.

Done.

Conclusion: Please split the conclusion section from Discussion section. Please summarize the comprehensive one separate paragraph of conclusion section: It is recommended to update it as separate heading as Conclusion it reflected the major study concerns.

Done – Conclusion section has been added

Please enlist the abbreviations used throughout the manuscript.

Enclosed at the end of the text

References : Please follow the journal guidelines

Done.

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for writing a quality article.

However, some omissions or corrections need to be made so that it can be published in the journal Sustainability.

The first of these; In the introduction, additional information of one or two paragraphs containing similar studies on this subject. Along with the similarities and differences of these studies, the research gap they left in the field should be defined.

The second is; the method part of the research should be written in detail. The method of research; research model, participants, data collection tools, data collection process, and data analysis should be written in detail under subheadings.

Also, the keywords are written long; Each keyword should not be longer than two words.

This article may be published in the Journal when you make the necessary corrections.

Author Response

I congratulate the authors for writing a quality article. However, some omissions or corrections need to be made so that it can be published in the journal Sustainability.

Thank you very much for your opinion and helpful remarks. Below, after a remark with the number, our response will be given in italic

We added a piece in the Introduction (and specify it in the literature review section)

Some previous studies showed that even stand-alone sustainability courses [21, 26] and education oriented for sustainability [22-25] are only partially successful in changing the attitudes of students. Other research assessed students’ sustainability competencies [16, 22, 23, 27] or checked if students are aware that the university is attempting to build a sustainability orientation, and if so – is the scale of these activities correlated with students’ pro-ecological attitudes [21, 24-26]. Several studies argue [10, 28, 29], that active learning methodologies, which are commonly used in modern business schools, are tools which are appropriate for developing critical thinking and sustainable attitudes in students.

In the 2.1. this sentences has been added

This distinction is sometimes described as follows: “EDS can be integrated in higher education vertically and horizontally. The former integrates sustainability though specific sustainability-related courses while the latter includes sustainability within the regular courses in the study plan” [24] ( p. 339). The horizontal inclusion of sustainability awareness-supporting activities could be done as an effect of political decisions made by university [27] or state authorities [39], or – as in our case – as a side effect of competencies acquired by students at university. Several authors have tried to assess if university studies (ones not directed towards ecological problems) increase the level of SD competencies [23, 27] or create a pro-ecological worldview [25], but – to our knowledge – this is the first attempt to check if the level of acquired in this way SD competencies correlates with pro-ecological worldview.

Done

Also, the keywords are written long; Each keyword should not be longer than two words.

We agree, but “Sustainable development competencies” is the key concept. We have shorten the keywords to 3 words each

Reviewer 3 Report

The present article is sufficiently interesting. The research question is novel and the methodology is articulated appropriately, especially if we think that the analysis is based on a questionnaire with only 66 participant. From this point of view, my only suggestion is to remove the regression analysis for the following reasons:

i) 66 observations is a sample too small to provide a robust regression;

ii) Consequently, regression's results are trivial;

iii) Nonetheless, all your interesting conclusions come from analysis and tests preceding the regression.

Apart from this, you employed an empirical strategy so convincing, that my initial prejudice due to the small sample was easily overcome. Very interesting.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive opinion and the remarks. We appreciate your input, especially the reminder about the number of observations needed for multiple regression analysis (min 15 for a predictor PLUS min. 15). However we prefer to change the regression analysis (lowering the number of predictors) to check how investigated predictors shape NEP index.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper is pertinent and critical for continuing studies around the discussion of SD skills of higher education students and consequences on their future as more sustainable citizens, focused on problems or/and academic education. Several studies denote that while some higher education degree courses at different levels offer subjects related to SD, participation and involvement is still low.

It seems to be unclear what gap this study intends to address. The abstract should be reviewed, especially the first two paragraphs, in order to clarify the context and background of the study.

It is suggested that you provide a reference or references in the literature that support line 86. It is also suggested that "SE competencies" be clarified.

The paragraph between line 105 -107 should be clarified. As well as line 158 "(ESD) Education".

The whole of section 3 should be reviewed, it is quite confusing, and a table or chart may help to present the information.

The manuscript must be properly revised before being published, the entire text, punctuation, references and the material and methods section must be reviewed.

It is also suggest reading the article on the perceptions of Portuguese higher education students, both in terms of the presentation of information and in terms of the discussion of the results.

Finally, I just want to say keep up the work and contribution.

Author Response

Thank you for all your comments and especially for suggestion about extra readings (including the article on the perceptions of Portuguese higher education students).

We tried to be more precise about the gap in the literature we wanted to address by putting two fragments in the Introduction and in the section 2.1. – see the revised version of the article.

The abstract was rewritten and misleading part is canceled.

We added some literature to support line 86 – however, we do not discuss more deeply the different approaches to define the concept of SD, except of differentiation of two approaches to the meaning of competency concept, and two for SD concept, basing on some reviewed articles.

The paragraph 105-107 has been changed and we hope is more clear.

Discussion from Line 158 has been enlarged and several lines of EDS separated.

Section 3 was rewritten and divided into separated parts.

We hope that we did our best in re-checking the manuscript for editing failures

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The proposed suggestions were considered in the improvement of the manuscript, so I suggest its publication in this present form.

Finally, I just want to say keep up the work and contribution.

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your comments and help. We appreciate your input taht give us a chance to improve the text.