Japanese Preservice Elementary Science Teachers’ Perspectives on Environmental Education: Knowledge, Values, and Social Aspects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the exploration of environmental health literacy using a phenomenographic method - applied to Japan teachers.

The abstract needs to be improved and the contribution of the paper needs to be made more clear.

The abstract states: "The study aimed to develop an understanding of what preservice teachers perceive as environmental literacy, the aspects in which these dimensions manifest, and their implications for education"

But in the materials and methods, the paper states: "This study employed a phenomenographic research design to evaluate a curriculum developed to integrate scientific concepts with their societal implications through narrative-based instruction."

The objective stated in the abstract appears to be different than the one discussed in materials and methods: evaluate a curriculum. This seems contradictory and the paper needs to be reframed to explain the main objectives and make it clear through the paper.

The "phenomenographic" study involved 9 questions in page 8. But the questions do not seem to deal with "environmental literacy" but with some aspects. This discussion should be linked to the "theoretical discussion" or to the literature review.

The introduction needs to provide a clear, linear discussion of the questions and objectives of the paper and provide motivation for the research.

The theoretical section and the literature review could be merged and improved to explain how the paper contributes and which gap it fills. 

Does the paper uses a "phenomenographic research design" or a thematic analysis? Explain the differences between the two methods and specify which one you are using.

Is the paper about environmental literacy or one aspect of it : biodiversity? Enhance the discussion by concentrating on "environmental literacy," as outlined in the introduction and title of the paper.

Overall, the paper deals with an important question, and studying Japanese professors is a worthwhile exercise. A revision could substantially improve the paper and enhance its contribution to the literature. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could benefit from refinements to improve its fluency and clarity.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing insightful and constructive feedback. Their comments have helped us to clarify key points, strengthen our arguments, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the following, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment and describe the revisions we have made to address the concerns raised. We hope that these changes satisfactorily address the reviewers’ suggestions and enhance the clarity and impact of our work.

COMMENT: The abstract needs to be improved and the contribution of the paper needs to be made more clear. The abstract states: "The study aimed to develop an understanding of what preservice teachers perceive as environmental literacy, the aspects in which these dimensions manifest, and their implications for education" But in the materials and methods, the paper states: "This study employed a phenomenographic research design to evaluate a curriculum developed to integrate scientific concepts with their societal implications through narrative-based instruction." The objective stated in the abstract appears to be different than the one discussed in materials and methods: evaluate a curriculum. This seems contradictory, and the paper needs to be reframed to clearly articulate its main objectives.

RESPONSE: 

Thank you very much for your sincere review and criticism. As you observed, the miscommunication is between the objective mentioned in the abstract and that mentioned in the materials and methods. We have come to understand that this was a result of the two dimensions of this study (one for portrayals of preservice teachers’ perspectives on environmental education, and another for how such perspectives are facilitated through curriculum). So the article’s overall structure is now more transparent and cohesive. In the revised version:

• The abstract explicitly indicates:
  • This study aims to examine pre-service teachers’ understanding of environmental education through a phenomenographic approach within a narrative-based instructional context that links scientific concepts to their societal impacts.
  • The study employed a phenomenographic design to explore pre-service teachers’ diverse understandings of environmental education. A curriculum developed using a narrative-based teaching approach served as a context for eliciting these understandings; the primary purpose of the study was not to evaluate the curriculum.
• The wording in the materials and methods section has been revised to emphasize that the study is aimed at examining preservice teachers’ perceptual differences within the context of the curriculum rather than evaluating its effects.

With these modifications, the paper's main aim and the research data collection method have been harmonized.

COMMENT: The "phenomenographic" study involved 9 questions in page 8. But the questions do not seem to deal with "environmental literacy" but with some aspects. This discussion should be linked to the "theoretical discussion” or to the literature review.

RESPONSE: 

Thank you. This valuable comment made us realize we needed to more clearly demonstrate the relationship between the study’s questions and the concept of environmental education. Accordingly, the literature review and method sections of the article were restructured: The literature review emphasized the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of environmental education and explained how these dimensions relate to biodiversity, alien species, and sustainability issues (Roth, 1992; Hollweg et al., 2011).

It was noted that the nine phenomenographic questions used in the study were prepared based on the subcomponents of environmental education (knowledge, attitude, and behavioral tendencies). A clarification was added to the method section stating that these questions aimed to uncover the diversity of meanings related to environmental education. Furthermore, the discussion section highlighted how the findings align with relevant studies in the environmental education literature (e.g., McBeth & Volk, 2010). As a result of these revisions, the integrity of the research questions within the environmental education conceptual framework was strengthened.

The study emphasizes the context of “environmental education” rather than the concept of “environmental literacy” because it does not directly aim to measure or define all dimensions of environmental literacy. The questions and discussions are primarily aimed at uncovering students’ understanding of environmental awareness, attitudes, and biodiversity within the context of environmental education. Therefore, the study is related to the specific content and learning outcomes of environmental education rather than the broader concept of “environmental literacy.” Furthermore, most environmental education studies in the literature focus on specific components of environmental literacy. This study, accordingly, examined students' learning experiences and conceptual understandings of biodiversity within the context of environmental education. Therefore, the emphasis is on “environmental education” rather than “environmental literacy.”

COMMENT: The introduction needs to provide a clear, linear discussion of the questions and objectives of the paper and provide motivation for the research.

RESPONSE: 

• Thank you for your comment. The introduction's organization has been redesigned to better convey the purpose of the study, its research questions, and motivation.
• The introduction has been clarified to better explain the background of the study and how it fills a gap.
• The purpose of the study is well mentioned in the fourth paragraph.
• In the fourth paragraph, the research questions are explicitly stated and connected to the rationale for conducting the study.
• Moreover, transitory sentences are strengthened, lending continuity and smoothness to the transition.
• With these changes, the introductory section should provide more help to readers in deciding why this research is worthwhile, what gap it fills, and what questions it pursues. The theoretical section and the literature review could be merged and improved to explain how the paper contributes and which gap it fills. 

COMMENT: Does the paper uses a "phenomenographic research design" or a thematic analysis? Explain the differences between the two methods and specify which one you are using.

RESPONSE: 

Thank you for this critical comment. The study was conducted within a phenomenographic framework, focusing on exploring the variation in participants’ experiences and conceptions of the phenomenon. However, the data analysis used inductive thematic analysis, which allowed us to identify recurring patterns, categories, and meaning clusters emerging from participants’ responses.

To clarify this distinction, the method section was revised as follows:

“Qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis, which involved familiarization with the data, identification of significant statements, comparison of responses, grouping of categories, and iterative cycles of refinement. Although the study was conducted within a phenomenographic framework, the findings represent thematic-level reflections of participants’ experiences. The themes derived from the data indicate variations in participants’ understandings; however, these variations were not structured into a hierarchical outcome space. This is because participants’ understandings emerged as overlapping and parallel fields of meaning rather than as distinct hierarchical levels. Therefore, consistent with the phenomenographic approach, the results are presented as sets of themes that describe the diversity of experiences and perspectives.”

This clarification makes it explicit that, while the phenomenographic perspective guided the conceptual framing and the focus on variation in experience, the analytical process followed an inductive thematic procedure consistent with qualitative traditions.

COMMENT: Is the paper about environmental literacy or one aspect of it : biodiversity? Enhance the discussion by concentrating on "environmental literacy," as outlined in the introduction and title of the paper.

Thank you for this valuable observation. The study does not focus solely on biodiversity as a sub-dimension of environmental literacy; rather, it approaches environmental literacy through the perspective of environmental education, emphasizing how pre-service teachers conceptualize environmental issues, values, and practices in culturally grounded contexts. Accordingly, the discussion section has been revised to clarify that the research explores how environmental education practices and conceptions reflect the multi-dimensional nature of environmental literacy — including knowledge, values, skills, civic participation, and outcomes.

In this revised version, biodiversity and related themes are treated as contextual lenses through which environmental literacy is interpreted, rather than as the central topic of the study. This clarification strengthens the alignment between the theoretical framework, the findings, and the title of the paper.

The study emphasizes the context of “environmental education” rather than the concept of “environmental literacy” because it does not directly aim to measure or define all dimensions of environmental literacy. The questions and discussions are primarily aimed at uncovering students’ understanding of environmental awareness, attitudes, and biodiversity within the context of environmental education. Therefore, the study is related to the specific content and learning outcomes of environmental education rather than the broader concept of “environmental literacy.” Furthermore, most environmental education studies in the literature focus on specific components of environmental literacy. This study, accordingly, examined students' learning experiences and conceptual understandings of biodiversity within the context of environmental education. Therefore, the emphasis is on “environmental education” rather than “environmental literacy.”

The discussion now explicitly highlights that the paper contributes to understanding how environmental literacy is manifested and operationalized within environmental education, particularly in the Japanese pre-service teacher context. Accordingly, the title is revised to reflect the environmental education broadly.

Overall, the paper deals with an important question, and studying Japanese professors is a worthwhile exercise. A revision could substantially improve the paper and enhance its contribution to the literature. 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for English revision. In response, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly edited to improve clarity, fluency, and readability. We have carefully revised the text for grammar, syntax, and academic style. The revised version has also been reviewed by a proficient English speaker. We believe the language is now clear and suitable for publication.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study designed and implemented a biodiversity education curriculum to evaluate its effectiveness in promoting university students’ environmental literacy. Focusing on Japanese undergraduates, the research explored their understanding of biodiversity and analyzed environmental literacy within a broader educational and social context. The findings reveal that in higher education, science majors tend to emphasize the acquisition of knowledge and skills while overlooking the social dimension of disciplinary knowledge—that is, how scientific knowledge is understood, applied, and reflected upon in social contexts. This insight provides important implications for curriculum design and instructional reform in science education.

 

Comment 1

1.Introduction

The transition from the discussion of global biodiversity education to focusing on Japanese university students appears somewhat abrupt. It is recommended to include a brief introduction to Japan’s position and role within the global landscape of biodiversity education.

 

 

Comment 2

2. Theoretical Perspective

The section 2. Theoretical Perspective effectively integrates multiple theoretical frameworks. To enhance readability and help readers grasp the key concepts more efficiently, it is recommended to organize this section with subheadings such as “2.1 Environmental Literacy Models,” “2.2 Sociocultural Learning Theory,” and “2.3 Social Representations Theory.”

 

Comment 3

3.Literature Review

This section demonstrates the author’s broad command of research on environmental literacy and biodiversity education, addressing ecological, educational, and sociocultural dimensions. The content is rich and logically organized. However, the scope of the literature review is too broad and the information too layered, resulting in a lack of clear structural guidance. It is recommended to include subheadings under Literature Review, such as:
3.1 Biodiversity and Environmental Education,
3.2 Dimensions of Environmental Literacy, and
3.3 Sociocultural Contexts of Environmental Literacy.
In addition, it is suggested to supplement the review with relevant literature from the past three years on environmental literacy education.

 

Comment 4

Lines 936–959 could be developed into a separate section titled “Conclusions and Recommendations.”
Lines 960–996 discuss the study’s limitations and should also be presented under a separate heading, rather than being included within the discussion section.

 

Comment 5

The discussion appears to overlook the evaluative trends from the closed-ended items. I recommend integrating these quantitative findings into the discussion: either by reflecting on the curriculum design and offering practical teaching recommendations based on them, or by synthesizing the closed-ended results with the thematic analysis from the open-ended responses to strengthen the argumentation. In particular, the finding that students showed limited understanding of the social/civic participation and cultural value dimensions warrants further discussion: the authors should consider whether this pattern may be attributable to the curriculum design or instructional methods and explicitly address this possibility in the limitations section.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing insightful and constructive feedback. Their comments have helped us to clarify key points, strengthen our arguments, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the following, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment and describe the revisions we have made to address the concerns raised. We hope that these changes satisfactorily address the reviewers’ suggestions and enhance the clarity and impact of our work.

COMMENT: 

The transition from the discussion of global biodiversity education to focusing on Japanese university students appears somewhat abrupt. It is recommended to include a brief introduction to Japan’s position and role within the global landscape of biodiversity education.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for your valuable review. As noted by our referee, the study abruptly shifted from a discussion of global biodiversity education to a focus on Japanese university students. Accordingly, structural revisions were made to the introduction and discussion sections.

• A brief explanation of Japan's position and role in global biodiversity education has been added to the introduction. This section briefly introduces Japan’ss place in international environmental education policies, curriculum-based environmental education practices, and biodiversity conservation programs.
• Transitional sentences in the discussion section have been reorganized to make the transition from the global context to the Japanese context more natural and fluid.

These revisions have more clearly illustrated how the environmental literacy perspective of Japanese pre-service teachers, the focus of the study, is positioned within the global biodiversity education perspective. Consequently, these additions have strengthened the flow of the text and emphasized the unique position of Japan within the global context.

COMMENT:  

The section 2. Theoretical Perspective effectively integrates multiple theoretical frameworks. To enhance readability and help readers grasp the key concepts more efficiently, it is recommended to organize this section with subheadings such as “2.1 Environmental Literacy Models,” “2.2 Sociocultural Learning Theory,” and “2.3 Social Representations Theory.”                                   

This section demonstrates the author’s broad command of research on environmental literacy and biodiversity education, addressing ecological, educational, and sociocultural dimensions. The content is rich and logically organized. However, the scope of the literature review is too broad and the information too layered, resulting in a lack of clear structural guidance. It is recommended to include subheadings under Literature Review, such as:
3.1 Biodiversity and Environmental Education,
3.2 Dimensions of Environmental Literacy, and
3.3 Sociocultural Contexts of Environmental Literacy.
In addition, it is suggested to supplement the review with relevant literature from the past three years on environmental literacy education.

RESPONSE: Based on the valuable suggestions of our referee, the theoretical framework and literature review sections were restructured. Taking similar suggestions from other referees into account, these two sections were integrated, creating a more streamlined and holistic structure. In the new reorganization, theoretical approaches and literature findings are presented in a complementary manner; furthermore, subheadings have been added to enhance the readability of the text. Accordingly, the relevant section has been restructured under the following headings: “Environmental Education: A Multidimensional Concept,” “Biodiversity Services,” “The Connection Between Biodiversity and Environmental Education,” “Sociocultural Perspective: Learning and the Construction of Meaning,” and “Contribution of the Study.” This reorganization not only allows for a clearer presentation of the fundamental concepts of environmental literacy models and sociocultural learning theory but also allows for a more direct connection between the theoretical framework and the literature. Furthermore, as suggested, references have been made to recent studies on environmental literacy education published in the last three years.

COMMENT: 

Lines 936–959 could be developed into a separate section titled “Conclusions and Recommendations.”
Lines 960–996 discuss the study’s limitations and should also be presented under a separate heading, rather than being included within the discussion section.

RESPONSE:  Following our referee's valuable suggestion, the conclusion and recommendation sections at the end of the discussion section have been restructured. The section summarizing the study's overall findings and including implications for future research and practice has been reorganized under a separate heading, "Conclusions and Recommendations." Furthermore, the section addressing the study's limitations has been separated from the discussion and presented under the heading "Limitations," as suggested. This reorganization strengthens the article's structural integrity and provides readers with easier access to the conclusion, recommendation, and limitations sections.

COMMENT: 

The discussion appears to overlook the evaluative trends from the closed-ended items. I recommend integrating these quantitative findings into the discussion: either by reflecting on the curriculum design and offering practical teaching recommendations based on them, or by synthesizing the closed-ended results with the thematic analysis from the open-ended responses to strengthen the argumentation. In particular, the finding that students showed limited understanding of the social/civic participation and cultural value dimensions warrants further discussion: the authors should consider whether this pattern may be attributable to the curriculum design or instructional methods and explicitly address this possibility in the limitations section.

RESPONSE: 

Based on our reviewer's critical assessment, the discussion section was restructured to reflect the trends in the quantitative (closed-ended) findings. In this context, particular emphasis was placed on students' limited understanding of the social/participatory dimension and cultural values. The curriculum structure and lack of practice-oriented teaching methods were discussed as possible reasons for this. Furthermore, it was considered that this design might be related to the design of environmental education programs, and this possibility was explicitly addressed in the limitations section. Thus, the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative findings was strengthened, and the discussion section was made more holistic, both theoretically and practically.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is interesting however I have  following comments and authors are requested to add them in the manuscript.

 

1. The study is framed as phenomenography but uses inductive thematic analysis. How do the presented results (a single set of themes) demonstrate the distinct, hierarchical "outcome space" of conceptions that is central to phenomenography?
2. The manuscript shifts between "environmental literacy" and "biodiversity" as its core focus. Please clarify the primary construct and ensure the narrative consistently positions the biodiversity curriculum as the context for exploring environmental literacy.
3. The "Civic and Political Engagement" theme was notably weak. Beyond identifying its absence, what are the specific, contextual reasons for this in Japanese teacher education, and what are actionable strategies to address it?
4. Please more directly link the specific findings (e.g., surprise about invasive species) back to the corresponding curriculum content to more clearly demonstrate the intervention's direct impact on the participants' conceptions.
5. The review of related works is extensive but lacks critical analysis, making it difficult to discern the precise contribution of this study over existing research. Therefore authors are suggested to add  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78781-w

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing insightful and constructive feedback. Their comments have helped us to clarify key points, strengthen our arguments, and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. In the following, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment and describe the revisions we have made to address the concerns raised. We hope that these changes satisfactorily address the reviewers’ suggestions and enhance the clarity and impact of our work.

COMMENT: The study is framed as phenomenography but uses inductive thematic analysis. How do the presented results (a single set of themes) demonstrate the distinct, hierarchical "outcome space" of conceptions that is central to phenomenography?

RESPONSE:  

We appreciate your comment. While our study is based on a phenomenographic framework, the data obtained did not allow for a clear hierarchical grouping of participants' experiences. Instead, themes representing a diversity of meanings emerged. These themes describe the participants' diverse understandings of the phenomenon and align with the phenomenographic approach's goal of explaining "diversity of meaning." A necessary explanation has been added to the methods section to clarify this situation.

 

“While this study was conducted within a phenomenographic framework, the findings reflect the participants’ experiences of the phenomenon at a thematic level. During the analysis, themes derived from the data illustrate the meaning differences that emerged in participants’ experiences, but these differences were not structured into a clear hierarchical outcome space. This is because participants’ understandings emerged as overlapping and parallel domains of meaning, rather than as discrete levels. Therefore, in keeping with the essence of the phenomenographic approach, the results are presented as clusters of themes that depict the differences in individuals’ experiences. The relationships between themes demonstrate a diversity of meanings but represent different dimensions of perspective rather than a hierarchical progression.”

COMMENT: The manuscript shifts between "environmental literacy" and "biodiversity" as its core focus. Please clarify the primary construct and ensure the narrative consistently positions the biodiversity curriculum as the context for exploring environmental literacy.

RESPONSE: 

Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have clarified the conceptual focus of the study. While the initial draft discussed environmental literacy and biodiversity as separate constructs, the revised manuscript now frames the study around participants’ perceptions of environmental education, which encompasses both biodiversity and ecological literacy as integral dimensions. Corresponding revisions have been made throughout the introduction, methodology, and discussion sections to ensure conceptual consistency. The findings highlight that participants perceive environmental education as a multidimensional construct encompassing knowledge, values, and action related to the environment. Within this framework, biodiversity and ecological literacy are not treated as separate foci but as integral aspects of a broader understanding of environmental education.

COMMENT: The "Civic and Political Engagement" theme was notably weak. Beyond identifying its absence, what are the specific, contextual reasons for this in Japanese teacher education, and what are actionable strategies to address it?

RESPONSE: 

Thank you for your comment. The weaker focus on the "Civic and Political Engagement" theme in the study stems from cultural and structural factors within the Japanese teacher education context. Because the Japanese education system generally emphasizes political neutrality and social harmony, prospective teachers' tendency to link environmental issues to political or civic-based action has been limited. A new paragraph has been added to the discussion section to clarify this and suggest ways to strengthen it. This section offers suggestions such as increasing civic awareness in environmental education programs, encouraging NGO collaborations, and utilizing action-based learning approaches.

COMMENT: Please more directly link the specific findings (e.g., surprise about invasive species) back to the corresponding curriculum content to more clearly demonstrate the intervention's direct impact on the participants' conceptions.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. Findings such as "surprise about invasive species" and "awareness of biodiversity" in participant statements were directly linked to the curriculum's biodiversity and local ecosystem-focused content. In particular, class discussions on observing native species, identifying invasive species, and ecosystem balance significantly shifted students' environmental understanding. New explanations highlighting these connections have been added to the discussion section. These explanations demonstrate that the intervention transformed not only participants' knowledge but also their environmental thinking.

COMMENT: The review of related works is extensive but lacks critical analysis, making it difficult to discern the precise contribution of this study over existing research. Therefore, authors are suggested to add  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78781-w

RESPONSE:  

This proposed article demonstrates how environmental factors influence students’ psychological and social well-being. However, it treats the environment not as an object of learning, but rather as an external condition that influences well-being. This study examines students’ understanding of environmental education and its meaning at the individual and societal levels. Therefore, this article shows that while existing studies examine the impact of ecological factors on well-being, this research explores how students’ perceptions of environmental education relate to well-being and the development of environmental identity. A paragraph we added to this article can be found in the discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised  version shows a substantial improvement

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted.