The Impact of a Sustainability Education Initiative on Pre-Service Teachers: Changes in Environmental Attitudes, Willingness to Act, and Ecological Footprint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current work tests how an intervention engaging pre-service teachers affects the teachers' attitudes towards environmental sustainability, willingness to act in a more "green" way, and ecological footprint. Authors find that the intervention, which combined the theoretical with experiential and reflective components, was indeed effective in increasing environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviours.

I see much which makes this work stand out positively. Firstly, the study tackles an important and timely topic. Secondly, it is situated in Israel, where environmental sustainability practices are still few and far between, particularly among the general population. Thirdly, the study relies on what seems like a well-thought-out and very involved intervention. Finally, the practical implications of the study, its intervention and the findings are significant.

However, I believe the work is plagued by imprecise writing, poor structure, a lack of focus, and technical issues. Below is an overview of the problems I have identified, which have led me to conclude the work has to be rewritten before it could be published.

In the Objectives of the Study, authors write that the study will evaluate how various teaching models can influence environmentally responsible behaviours and attitudes. However, no models are being compared. Instead, all the participants received the same intervention. The comparison was solely based on the participants' pre- and post-scores.

The Theoretical Background of the study mentions five theoretical perspectives. None of them are in any recognizable way related to the actual study at hand, nor are they picked up again in the discussion.

Moreover, despite the fact the study is set in Israel, the introduction does not reflect on the specific nature of this context, when it comes to environmental protection and education about sustainable "green" behaviours. I highly recommend that the authors look into this literature and use it to better contextualize the study. Such contextualization will also allow the authors to more strongly argue for the importance of their work.

Participant recruitment is not discussed. How were the pre-service teachers approached? What was offered as compensation for their involvement in the intervention and the pre- / post-test? Only the final paragraph of the manuscript mentions that the participants self-selected into the study. This must be explored in more details.

Every time the authors use a table to aid in the intelligibility of the results, they also report the same statistical values in the text. There is no need to repeat information in such a way. If a table is offered up, then the associated text needs only point to the table and summarize the findings without reporting statistical values.

I will also add here that the statistical values are reported in a rather slapdash manner, since none of the Latin-letter symbols for statistical values (p, R, B, etc.) are italicized. I realize that Sustainability does not uphold the APA formatting guidelines, but using slanted text for the names of statistical values is a convention that goes beyond APA.

Multiple sections of text seem like bulletpoints (e.g., the Methods section). They seem unfinished, and the reader is left guessing what each of the statements mean.

It seems the authors spent a long time a) designing the intervention, and b) selecting and pretesting the materials and measures they wanted to use in the study with the collaboration of "environmental sustainability experts". I suggest that these efforts are discussed in more detail and presented as Study 1, or as a Pilot Study, rather than as they are now - squeezed into the Method section.

The Results section, authors report repeated t-tests. I wonder why, when a repeated measures GLM with pairwise comparisons, which can be easily conducted in SPSS ver.30. It would have also allowed the authors to adjust for repeated t-testing in a way which would reduce the likelihood of committing a Type 1 error (e.g., Bonferroni adjustment).

None of the results are associated to either an a-priori sample size calculation, nor a sensitivity power analysis, which would have informed the reader about the necessary sample size given some effect size. In fact, no effect sizes were reported in the ANOVAs and t-tests, giving no cues to future researchers on what sort of effect strength to expect, and, thus, how many people to recruit in any future replication.

I recommend to the authors to consider displaying the mediation and moderation analyses as figures. Again, there is no need to express in text what is already expressed in the table (or, if the authors take my advice, in the figure).

The Conclusion section is, confusingly, written as a Limitation section, when it should have restated the main findings and insights of the study. Limitations should have been discussed in the previous section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have found only some minor issues with English. For example, on p.2 (lines 56-59), the two sentences there make no sense. It feels as though the first one was not completed ("However, many pre-service..."), and the second one is out of context ("Practical methods like...").

For me, the greater issue was the inconsistent technical writing and statistical reporting.

Author Response

The reply is in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read with interest the article examining the role of environmental education for pre-service teachers in Israel. The study, which involved a sample of 60 participants, presents an interesting idea—assessing how an educational intervention may influence teachers' attitudes and behavior in relation to climate. While the content of the study is certainly noteworthy, I have several concerns regarding the methodological choices, the assumed cause-and-effect relationships, and the intervention's design. Additionally, the theoretical discussion would benefit from further reflection. My key observations and suggestions are outlined below:

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
The approaches to environmental education should be more clearly articulated. The literature review would benefit from being more integrated and cohesive. For instance, the use of subheadings is not always justified, particularly when the accompanying text is brief. I recommend separating the theoretical framework from the literature review and expanding the discussion of each theory cited, as many are currently only briefly mentioned.

Methodological Considerations
I would like to know whether the study was preregistered and whether a power analysis or sample size calculation was conducted in advance. A sample of 60 participants may be insufficient to support substantive conclusions. It is unclear why an experimental design was not considered. Given that the same participants were assessed before and after the intervention, there is a risk of social desirability bias, particularly when attitudes are measured in close relation to the intervention at two time points.

Content of the Intervention
The intervention appears to cover a broad range of topics related to sustainability education, which raises the question of what specific elements are driving observed changes in attitudes and behavior. Is the most influential component the practical training, the informational content, the practical experience, or the reflective elements? With the current study design, it is difficult to disentangle these effects.

Data Analysis and Interpretation
The study appears largely correlational, making it difficult to establish causal relationships. In terms of statistical analysis, it is unclear why regression analysis was not employed in addition to t-tests. Furthermore, the presentation of results would benefit from more coherent reporting and discussion. I also suggest limiting the use of subheadings, as their frequency can disrupt the flow of the text.

Conclusions and Limitations
The discussion of attitude and behavioral changes should avoid causal language, given the limitations of the study design. Moreover, a more thorough discussion of limitations is necessary. These include, but are not limited to, the issues of causality, the limited sample size, the nature of the analysis, the complexity of the intervention, and questions of generalizability. The findings and conclusions drawn from this study should be presented as suggestive rather than definitive. I encourage the authors to adopt a more critical perspective in interpreting and presenting their results.

 

Author Response

The reply is in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a study carried out with 60 third year pre-service teachers, that intends to analyse their environmental attitudes, their willingness to act and a reduction of their ecological footprints. The text indicates that three tests were used, applied before a 6-week educational intervention, and afterwards. It also presents data on a trial teaching of the 60 students involved, where they had the opportunity to apply the learning acquired with the program. The statistical analysis of the gathered data suggests an increase in environmental attitudes, alongside the willingness to act and a reduction in the ecological footprint of the participants.

Although the idea in understandable, the manuscript needs a comprehensive revision in terms of content. The introduction and conclusion need to be expanded and focus on the study (e.g. the statement in line 34 is not followed up or integrated into the rest of the manuscript, which weakens its relevance and coherence). The objectives of the study are insufficiently developed: how does this study fit in with previous studies? Does it fill any gaps within this theme? Does it follow any previous studies of this kind? Including this information would contribute to a more coherent argumentation and strengthen the article’s overall scientific relevance.

As for the research questions and hypotheses: it is necessary to support the hypotheses with the knowledge from the literature review or with other studies of this kind. On the other hand, please consider revising the number of hypotheses. The first three appear somewhat redundant and could potentially be merged into a single, more concise statement. While the remaining four are sound, the total number of hypotheses may be excessive given the sample size (n = 60). Although the reported values are strong, it is unclear to what extent the data may be overfitted to such a small sample. I suggest reducing the number of hypotheses to two, or at most three, to enhance the coherence between theory and methodology.

As for demographic data, it is always necessary and pertinent. The text distinguishes the marital status of the students, as well as their level of religiosity, explaining that "This diversity enriches the exploration of attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability education" (lines 142 and 143). The research questions, hypotheses, and statistical analyses do not address these two data points, nor are they discussed later in the manuscript. Since the remaining data are sufficient to answer the research questions, I recommend removing this information to maintain focus and coherence.

In the “Instruments” section (line 204), besides the demographics questionnaire, only the Environmental Attitudes Inventory is mentioned. However, two additional instruments — the Willingness to Act for the Environment scale (referenced only in the results and Appendix A.2) and the Ecological Footprint Questionnaire— are presented later in the text and in the appendices. Please consider completing this section to ensure consistency.

The article includes information regarding "Trial Teaching Days" (lines 175-203); however, this content appears to fall outside the scope of this article. You might consider removing it.

Author Response

The reply is in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the manuscript was sufficiently improved compared to the first submission. I am still not a fan of some of the writing, which is structured as bullet-points, rather than following typical conventions in academic writing, but if the editors are happy about that, so am I.

Please take care of minor mistakes to avoid an impression of sloppiness. For example, I noted that a runaway "1)", which has no business being there, was included in the text on page 10, line 360. This is likely a remnant of the title of the next section ("1. Selection of Key Categories").

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The attached document contains all the answers to your comments/corrections and recommendations. Also, the English has been corrected by a certified native English speaker.

sincerely,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately responded to all my concerns.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The attached document contains all the answers to your comments/corrections and recommendations. Also, the English has been corrected by a certified native English speaker.

sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a study carried out with 60 third year pre-service teachers, aiming to analyse their environmental attitudes, willingness to act and reduction of their ecological footprints. The text indicates that three tests were used, applied before and after a six-week educational intervention. It also mentions a trial teaching of the 60 students involved, where they had the opportunity to apply the learning acquired with the program. The statistical analysis of the gathered data suggests an increase in environmental attitudes, alongside the willingness to act and a reduction in the ecological footprint of the participants.

Overall, the article has been improved, with many of its inconsistencies removed or corrected. Both the Introduction and Conclusion have been expanded and now provide a more comprehensive demonstration of the study’s objectives and results. The research objectives have been made more explicit, contributing to the manuscript’s clarity. The study’s research hypotheses are better aligned with one another and, to some extent, more grounded in the literature review (though, as I highlight below, the literature review still requires improvement). Regarding the methodology, while in the initial review the results appeared overly fitted to the small sample used, with the revised hypothesis that risk is less pronounced. Additionally, the instruments are sufficiently described and appropriately contextualized within the study.

However, structural weaknesses persist, particularly in the literature review. While appearing well-argued, it contains numerous citations that do not directly discuss the subject of the study. Several cited sources seem unrelated to key aspects of the research, raising concerns about their relevance. As I have made aware on my initial report, some references attribute claims to works that, upon closer examination, do not actually address those topics. For example:

• reference 7 does not address pre-service teachers;
• reference 12 does not mention the lack of training and implementation of sustainability programs outsider Europe;
• references 4 and 26 do not mention Bandura and the Social Learning Theory;
• reference 32 does not address experiential learning, gardening and field trips as environmental connections enhancers;
• reference 34 does not address STEM-based approaches;
• …

This issue undermines the foundation of the study’s hypothesis and discussion, while diminishing the article’s academic rigor. Please conduct a thorough revision of both the cited references and the reference list.

Another aspect requiring on the manuscript is the Discussion section. Rather than presenting only general conclusions, the manuscript should analyse each hypothesis individually within the Discussion section, ensuring a more structured and thorough interpretation of the results.

There is some unnecessary repetition of information throughout the manuscript. For example:

• Much of the information on the Procedure section (lines 392- 396) is already presented between lines 306-323;
• The pilot study (lines 385-390) was previously referenced in lines 331-333;
• The sensitivity power analysis using G*Power appears in both lines 204-206 and lines 420-424;
• …

While some repetition is expected some repetition in scientific writing, it should be justified. Please consolidate these passages into a single section when appropriate, or adjust their placement to ensure they are more relevant to the sections they appear in.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding language and writing, several sentences lack continuity, making the text feel disjointed. For example:

• Lines 33- 36 introduce three different ideas, but they are presented without clear connections;
• Lines 81-87 and 91-97 exhibit a similar issue;
• …

Please revise the manuscript to improve coherence and readability, ensuring smoother changes between ideas.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The attached document contains all the answers to your comments/corrections and recommendations. Also, the English has been corrected by a certified native English speaker.

sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a study conducted with third-year pre-service teachers, from Israel, aiming to analyse their environmental attitudes, willingness to act and reduction of their ecological footprints. The text indicates that three tests were applied before and after a six-week educational intervention. It also mentions a trial teaching of the sixty students involved, where they had the opportunity to apply the knowledge gained from the program. The statistical analysis of the gathered data suggests an increase in environmental attitudes, alongside a higher willingness to act and a reduction in the ecological footprint of the participants. Given its focus on a Middle Eastern context, the study offers valuable insights into an understudied region.

Overall, the article has been improved, with some of its inconsistencies removed or corrected. However, regarding the research hypotheses, while the second review the manuscript depicted three research hypotheses (currently between lines 149 through 155) in the Introduction — reducing the risk of overfitting results — this version adds four new hypotheses in the Discussion section. I maintain that the discussion should focus solely on the initial three hypotheses, and the other four should be removed.

Additionally, structural weaknesses persist, particularly in the literature review. While the manuscript is well-argued (though some sentences still lack cohesion), it still contains numerous citations that do not directly discuss the subject of the study. Several cited sources seem unrelated to key aspects of the research, raising concerns about their relevance. As highlighted in previous reports, some references attribute claims to works that, upon closer examination, do not actually address those topics. For example:

• reference 7 does not discuss pre-service teachers or Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory;
• references 9 and 10 do not address Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior; Ajzen is referenced in lines 104, 113 and 454, yet no corresponding work appears in the manuscript’s References;
• reference 12 does not mention the lack of training and implementation of sustainability programs outside Europe;
• references 4 and 26 do not mention Bandura and the Social Learning Theory;
• reference 18 barely addresses Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory; a direct reference to Kolb’s work is advisable;
• reference 19 does not address Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory;
• reference 32 does not address experiential learning, gardening and field trips as environmental connections enhancers;
• reference 34 does not address STEM-based approaches;
• …

This issue undermines the foundation of the study’s hypothesis and discussion, while diminishing the article’s academic rigor. Please conduct a thorough revision of both the cited references and the reference list.

Additional concerns include the following:

• Lines 103 through 125 address the same topic and share the same subtitle. Please review this section in light of the required thorough revision of citations and references.
• Line 181 mentions Faul et al. (2007), yet this work does not appear in the manuscript’s References, nor is it properly numbered according to Sustainability journal guidelines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding language and writing, several sentences still lack continuity, making the text feel disjointed. For example:

• The sentences comprising “Observation and Feedback Process” (lines 241-246), “Adaptation Process” (lines 255-258), “Subdimensions of the 24-Item Version” (lines 260-262), “Psychometric Properties” (lines 264-266; lines 346-350) subsections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
The attached text contains answers and corrections to all the comments and corrections you suggested.

All the best,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

Your article has improved since the first version I had the opportunity to read. It presents a study with scientific value particularly relevant for the local context. However, it still shows some structural weaknesses. I believe that the article presents solid scientific arguments, but some of them are not sufficiently supported by relevant scientific literature. The manuscript still includes references that do not correspond to the discourse and arguments they use. For instance:

• reference 7 does not discuss pre-service teachers or Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory; as far as I’m aware, reference 7 has no place within your manuscript, and I suggest removing it;
• reference 12 does not mention the lack of training and implementation of sustainability programs outside Europe; please replace with one that addresses that issue;
• reference 34 does not address STEM-based approaches;
• … and others.

This issue undermines the foundation of the study’s hypothesis and discussion, while diminishing the article’s academic rigor. I urge you to conduct a thorough revision of both the cited references and the reference list and delete the ones unnecessary.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Here, we send the review report (Round 4)

All the best

Prof. Muhamad Hugerat

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf