Evaluating SERTPs: Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices Among Science Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the observations attached and let me know what you think.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

 Evaluating SETPs: Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices among Science Teachers

This article examines the extent to which science teachers implement Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Teaching Practices (SERTPs). Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, the study investigated the overall prevalence of these practices and their association with various demographic and professional characteristics, including gender, stage of teaching career, academic qualifications, level of technological proficiency, and age.

 

1. You should provide more detail on the most significant findings of your research in the abstract.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 1:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The abstract has been revised to clearly present the key findings, including the main numerical results and the significant differences identified in the study. This modification enhances the clarity and accuracy of the abstract and strengthens the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

1. The objective of the study should be clearly specified in the introduction and abstract.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 2:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, the objective of the study has been clearly and explicitly stated in both the introduction and the abstract. The revisions ensure that the study’s purpose is immediately understandable and accurately reflects the scope and direction of the research, thereby enhancing the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

1. The introduction is too long and could be shortened for better comprehension.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, the introduction has been carefully shortened by removing repetition, reducing excessive theoretical detail, and consolidating related sections. The revised version is now more concise, focused, and streamlined to improve clarity and overall readability, while retaining the essential background and rationale of the study.

1.  At the end of the introduction, state the research question that the study will answer. This should be related to the research objective.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 4:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, a clear research question aligned with the study’s objective has now been added at the end of the introduction. This revision improves the structure of the manuscript and ensures a direct connection between the research objective and the question guiding the study.

 

1. Section 4 (Research Objective) is incorrectly aligned with Objective 3 (To provide recommendations for improving SERTP in science education).

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 5:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. Section 4 (Research Objective) has been revised to ensure full alignment with Objective 3, which focuses on providing recommendations for improving SERTPs in science education. The section has been clarified and reformulated to accurately reflect the intended objective and maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.

1. Both sections 3 and 4 are included within the introduction.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 6:

Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, Sections 3 and 4 have been reorganized and moved outside the introduction to ensure proper structural alignment with the manuscript’s overall layout. The introduction now only contains background information, the study rationale, and the research question, while the objectives are placed in a separate, clearly labeled section as recommended.

1. Point 6, the importance of the topic, is also included in the introduction and is not separated out.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 7:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The significance of the study has been revised and presented as a separate, concise section. It now clearly highlights the importance of understanding science teachers’ implementation of SERTPs and how the findings contribute to strengthening sustainability integration and supporting teacher preparation at national and global levels.

1. Section 7 (Methodology) needs more thorough support; it is very weak.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 8:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, Section 7 (Methodology) has been substantially strengthened. Additional details have been added regarding the research design, sampling procedures, instrument development, validity and reliability measures, data collection steps, and statistical analysis techniques. These revisions provide clearer methodological grounding and ensure that the section meets rigorous academic standards.

1. What type of technique was used to select the sample?

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 9:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The methodology section has been revised to clearly specify the sampling technique used in the study. A simple random sampling technique was employed to select the participating science teachers, ensuring that all eligible individuals had an equal chance of being included in the sample. This clarification has been added to enhance the methodological rigor and transparency of the manuscript.

 

1. The values in Table 2 are not presented coherently and there are errors in the wording regarding significance. This needs improvement.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 10:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, Table 2 has been carefully reviewed and revised to ensure coherent presentation of all values. Errors in wording related to statistical significance have also been corrected. The table now includes properly aligned numerical values, consistent terminology, and accurate significance labels, resulting in clearer and more precise reporting of the results.

1. Similarly, Table 3 is not in the correct format for a study and needs to be reformatted as the results are not presented correctly.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 11:

Thank you for this constructive comment. In response, Table (3) has been fully reviewed and reformatted to ensure proper academic presentation. The results have now been organized clearly, with consistent numerical alignment, correct statistical labels, and appropriate significance indicators. The revised table follows standard reporting guidelines for quantitative studies, ensuring accurate and coherent interpretation of the findings.

1. requires improvement, as a clearer description of the instrument used is needed.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 12:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, Point 9 has been revised to provide a clearer and more detailed description of the instrument used in the study. Additional information has been added regarding the structure of the instrument, its dimensions, the number of items, the response scale, and the procedures followed to ensure its validity and reliability. This enhancement improves the clarity and completeness of the instrument section.

1. The statistical analysis needs improvement. 14. The interpretations and main findings of Tables

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 13:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. Accordingly, the interpretations of all tables have been rewritten to ensure clearer, more coherent, and academically appropriate explanations of the results. The revised interpretations now highlight the key findings, clarify the statistical significance, and directly relate the results to the study objectives and research question. These improvements enhance the clarity, analytical depth, and overall quality of the results section.

1.  through 10 need improvement, as does their wording

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 14:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. Accordingly, the interpretations of all tables have been rewritten to ensure clearer, more coherent, and academically appropriate explanations of the results. The revised interpretations now highlight the key findings, clarify the statistical significance, and directly relate the results to the study objectives and research question. These improvements enhance the clarity, analytical depth, and overall quality of the results section.

1. The discussion and conclusions sections require significant improvement.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 15:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable comment regarding the need to improve the Discussion and Conclusion sections. In response, both sections have been substantially revised to enhance clarity, coherence, and analytical depth. The Discussion has been strengthened by more explicitly linking the study’s findings to relevant literature, providing deeper interpretation of results, and highlighting the theoretical and practical implications. Additionally, the Conclusion section has been restructured to present a clear summary of the major findings, emphasize the study’s contribution to the field, and outline practical recommendations and directions for future research. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion, which has contributed significantly to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments provided throughout the manuscript. The detailed observations have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor of the study. Each suggestion was carefully addressed and led to substantial improvements in the structure, analysis, and articulation of the findings. We are grateful for the reviewer’s time, expertise, and thoughtful guidance, which greatly enriched the quality of the final manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent, congratulations! I think this is an excellent piece of work, in which the research questions regarding the level of science teaching practices, the significant differences among science teachers according to gender, teaching stage, level of technology use, and age are clearly presented.Furthermore, I believe these questions are answered, and I agree, as shown in the paper, that teachers are effectively integrating sustainability principles into their daily pedagogical routines and fostering an improvement in students’ environmental awareness.Therefore, the results presented here confirm the shift towards pedagogical models converging on sustainability. It should be noted that the information tables are appropriate.

Author Response

1. I think this is an excellent piece of work, in which the research questions regarding the level of science teaching practices, the significant differences among science teachers according to gender, teaching stage, level of technology use, and age are clearly presented. Furthermore, I believe these questions are answered, and I agree, as shown in the paper, that teachers are effectively integrating sustainability principles into their daily pedagogical routines and fostering an improvement in students’ environmental awareness. Therefore, the results presented here confirm the shift towards pedagogical models converging on sustainability. It should be noted that the information tables are appropriate.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging feedback. We greatly appreciate the acknowledgment of the clarity of the research questions and the confirmation that the study effectively addressed them. We are also grateful for the reviewer’s recognition of the integration of sustainability principles within teachers’ pedagogical practices and the contribution of the findings to advancing sustainability-oriented educational models. Additionally, we value the reviewer’s affirmation that the information tables are appropriate. Such thoughtful and supportive comments are highly motivating and contribute to strengthening the overall quality of the manuscript.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging feedback. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the clarity of the research questions and the confirmation that the findings effectively demonstrate the integration of sustainability principles in science teaching. Your supportive comments are highly valued and contributed to strengthening the final version of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The research aims to understand how science teachers conceptualize, apply, and maintain environmentally responsible teaching practices in real classroom contexts through empirical research and analysis.  The objectives and hypotheses of the study are well defined and are answered by the research carried out.  The topic of research is original and relevant. The fact that the research uses a scale developed by the researchers, comprising six dimensions, contributes to scientific research, and can be used in another research in the same field. Hence the original nature of this research.  This article also has a “recommendations” component on different topics, which makes this publication significant and distinctive.  I consider the methodology used to be appropriate and well explained.  The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, answering the research question. The bibliographical references are relevant and appropriate to the study. They are also current, making them a reference for this area of study.  The tables and figures are correct; however, I would suggest greater spacing between tables, figures, and text. Altogether, it hinders readability, but it is only a matter of layout.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and insightful comments. We appreciate the recognition of the study’s originality, the clarity of its objectives, and the strength of its methodology and conclusions. We have also taken the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding spacing between tables, figures, and text into consideration and improved the layout accordingly. The constructive feedback has greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and encouraging comments. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the study’s originality, the clarity of its objectives, and the contribution of the newly developed scale. We also value the reviewer’s positive evaluation of the methodology, conclusions, and references, as well as the helpful suggestion regarding layout and spacing, which has been taken into consideration. Your constructive feedback has significantly strengthened the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
After a detailed review of your manuscript, I would first like to acknowledge the relevance of the topic and the clear effort invested in addressing sustainable and environmentally responsible teaching practices among science teachers. The study is grounded in an important and timely line of research aligned with international frameworks on Education for Sustainable Development. The overall structure is coherent, and the theoretical background provides an adequate foundation for the empirical work presented.

The introduction effectively contextualizes the research problem, and the literature review is extensive, demonstrating familiarity with major debates in sustainability education. However, there are sections where the narrative could be made more succinct to avoid redundancy and improve conceptual precision. Streamlining some paragraphs would help focus the reader’s attention on the central arguments and clarify contributions to the existing scholarship.

The research design, sample description, and data collection procedures are clearly presented. The methodological approach is appropriate for the stated objectives, yet certain aspects would benefit from deeper justification, particularly regarding the rationale for using a three-point scale and the implications this has for variability and sensitivity in the results. Additionally, the hypotheses could be articulated in a more explicit manner to reinforce their alignment with the research questions.

The results section is generally clear and supported by well-organized tables. Descriptive and inferential findings are presented coherently. Nonetheless, the discussion could be strengthened by further connecting the empirical findings with the theoretical frameworks introduced earlier, in order to enhance the interpretative depth. More critical reflection on potential limitations would also contribute to the credibility and transparency of the study.

The referencing is largely adequate, although the manuscript may benefit from integrating more recent and high-impact sources, particularly from the last three years, to reinforce the study’s contribution and engagement with contemporary scholarship. The English language is understandable overall, but several sentences would benefit from grammatical refinement and stylistic polishing to improve fluency, clarity, and precision.

In its current state, the manuscript presents noteworthy potential. With revisions aimed at strengthening conceptual coherence, refining methodological justification, tightening the discussion, and enhancing language clarity, the paper could improve significantly and meet the publication standards expected.

Sincerely,
Reviewer.

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The introduction effectively contextualizes the research problem… however, there are sections where the narrative could be more succinct to avoid redundancy and improve conceptual precision.”

Response Comment1:

Thank you for this valuable observation. The introduction and literature review have been carefully revised to remove redundancy, streamline the narrative, and improve conceptual clarity. Several paragraphs were condensed, and the transitions between sections were strengthened to maintain focus on the core arguments and contributions of the study.

Comment 2:

“The research design and methodology are appropriate, but the rationale for using a three-point scale requires deeper justification.”

Response Comment2:

We appreciate this important point. The manuscript has been updated to include a clearer justification for using the three-point Likert scale, explaining its suitability for capturing the frequency of sustainable teaching practices and ensuring reliability while reducing response ambiguity. Additional discussion has been added regarding the implications for variability and measurement sensitivity.

Comment 3:

“The hypotheses could be articulated more explicitly to reinforce alignment with the research questions.”

Response Comment3:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The hypotheses have been rewritten to ensure greater clarity and explicit alignment with the stated research questions. Each hypothesis now directly corresponds to a specific research objective and is presented in clearer academic form.

Comment 4:

“The discussion would benefit from stronger connections between empirical findings and theoretical frameworks, as well as more critical reflection on limitations.”

Response Comment4:

We agree with this recommendation. The discussion section has been substantially strengthened by linking the empirical results more explicitly with the theoretical concepts introduced earlier. Furthermore, a separate subsection on study limitations has been added to enhance transparency and to contextualize the findings within broader ESD research.

Comment 5:

“The referencing is adequate but could benefit from integrating more recent and high-impact sources, especially from the last three years.”

Response Comment5:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful remark. The reference list has been updated to include several recent, high-impact studies published in the last three years. These additions further reinforce the study’s relevance and its contribution to current sustainability education research.

Comment 6:

“The English language requires grammatical refinement and stylistic polishing to improve fluency and precision.”

Response Comment6:

We appreciate this comment. The entire manuscript has undergone comprehensive language editing to improve grammar, coherence, fluency, and academic tone. Sentences have been revised for clarity and precision, and stylistic improvements have been incorporated where needed.

Comment 7:

“Greater spacing between tables, figures, and text is recommended for readability.”

Response Comment7:

Thank you for noting this formatting issue. The layout has been adjusted throughout the manuscript to increase spacing between tables, figures, and adjacent text. This improves readability and ensures conformity with MDPI formatting guidelines.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and insightful evaluation. Your constructive comments and thoughtful suggestions have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Chapter I, the core elements of the research (the general objective, the hypothesis and the importance of the study) are not presented explicitly within Section 1, 'Introduction'. These components should be clearly integrated into this section to maintain a coherent and continuous structure and avoid scattering them or developing them in isolated sections.

Similarly, the need to improve the interpretation of the tables is emphasised, with a deeper analysis of the results directly linking them to the objectives and the research problem.

Therefore, it is recommended that the objective, hypothesis and relevance of the research are relocated to the Introduction and explicitly stated, and that the interpretations of the tables are strengthened, so that the reader can identify the purpose, approach and relevance of the study from the outset.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

In response to the reviewer:

Reviewer's comment:

In Chapter 1, the essential elements of the research (general objective, hypothesis, and significance of the study) were not clearly presented in the first section, "Introduction." These elements should be clearly integrated into this section to maintain a coherent and continuous structure and avoid scattering them or presenting them in separate sections.

Furthermore, the interpretation of the tables needs to be improved through a deeper analysis of the results that directly links them to the objectives and the research problem.

Therefore, it is recommended that the research objective, hypothesis, and significance be moved to the introduction and clearly explained, and that the table interpretations be enhanced, so that the reader can identify the purpose, methodology, and significance of the study from the outset.

Response to the reviewer:

Thank you very much for these constructive and valuable observations, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and coherence of the research.

In response to your comments, Chapter 1 (Introduction) has been carefully revised to clearly integrate the essential elements of the research within the first section. Specifically, the general objective, research hypotheses, and significance of the study have been clearly and consistently explained in the concluding part of the introduction. This revision incorporates a coherent and logical narrative structure, allowing readers to clearly understand the study's purpose, scope, and significance from the outset, in line with the recommended structure for sustainability manuscripts.

Furthermore, the tables in the results section have been significantly enhanced. The revised manuscript goes beyond mere description, providing in-depth analytical explanations for each table. The explanations now clearly connect the empirical findings to the research objectives and the central research problem, highlighting how the results address the identified gap between education policies geared towards sustainability and their practical application in science teaching. This improvement underscores the significance of the findings and reinforces their contribution to the study's objectives and the broader context of education for sustainable development.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript's coherence, analytical depth, and readability, and we sincerely appreciate the reviewer's guidance in enhancing the overall quality of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The interpretation of the tables, as well as the formulation of the objectives, hypotheses, and conclusions, has improved; overall, there has been a significant enhancement in the coherence and quality of the work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.