Nurturing Eco-Literate Minds: Unveiling the Pathways to Minimize Ecological Footprint in Early Childhood Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is okay but since there will be a complete overhaul revision of the manuscript, the final product will change.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your remarks and have included detailed responses to each of them in our answers. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1:

The abstract should be brief, self-contained, and complete. References should not be included within the text of the abstract.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comment. The abstract was rewritten by the recommendations. It was also shortened, and references to the literature were removed.

Comment 2:

The Introduction needs to provide: Clearly stated objectives, Background information of the study, and More information beyond just stating the above issues.

Response:

As suggested, the Introduction has been rewritten, expanding on the issues and incorporating additional references for context.

Comment 3:

The authors give three references in the methodology (Friman 2018; 2020; and 2022). They should be able to give a methodology they used. Stated a reference is not enough in itself. These studies should be able to provide a background of the study since they seem to be alike.

Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. A more detailed methodology is now provided, offering insights into the background of the study with references (Lines: 81-99).

Comment 4:

How were the elementary participant pupils selected? What was the population and sample size? Authors should be able to indicate how learning from experience was used to collect data here; what data was collected and how was it analyzed.

Response:

All relevant information, including participant selection, population, sample size, and data collection methods, is now explicitly addressed in the methods chapter (Lines: 144-146 & 204-211).

 

Comment 5:

The Authors should also indicate the period of the study.

Response:

The period of the study is now described in chapter 2.1, under "Setting and Participants."

Comment 6:

Much of the content in the Results section, especially that reporting of the history of the project, should be taken to the introduction section to form part of the background information.

Response:

As advised, content related to the history of the project has been relocated to the Introduction section to enhance the background information.

Comment 7:

The Discussion should also discuss how your results relate to other studies.

Response:

References from studies around the world have been added to the results section to relate our results to existing research better.

Comment 8:

The conclusions are too long and need to be rewritten.

Response:

The conclusions have been rephrased and condensed as suggested. Thank you for your input.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the current problem of increasing environmental competence of the people. The research is significant for Israeli education, but its contribution to global science is unclear. The study design was poorly written. Statistical analysis is missing. Most of the results are not informative and are not supported by figures and tables. The article needs serious revision.

Title

The title doesn't quite match the content. The article talks about increasing children's environmental knowledge, which may subsequently decrease Ecological Footprint.

Abstract

References are usually not used in the abstract. The text should be edited. Authors should focus on the novelty of the study, methods, and results obtained.

Introduction

The introduction is not written clearly and is not structured. This section should begin with the relevance of the research problem and be supported by references to the literature. The novelty of the research, the scientific background, and the corresponding research hypothesis must be stated. The experience of other researchers in studying the interplay between ecological footprint and early childhood education is not shown. The introduction needs to be rewritten carefully.

Materials and Methods

Research methods are not fully described. For example, what was the sample of students and children; when was the research conducted? Some of this data is listed in the results. Perhaps the criteria for conducting such studies have already been developed, then it is worth providing references.

Results

Most of the results are not informative and are not supported by figures and tables. For example, sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. There is no statistical analysis of the data, which does not allow us to assess the reliability of the results.

In section 3.4, it would be appropriate to provide references. Provide more information about comparative analysis with similar programs in the world.

Discussion

The authors described the significance of the research for society, but did not indicate what results were obtained for the first time, or how this study differs from similar ones in other countries. There are no references provided in the discussion.

Conclusions

The validity of the conclusions is difficult to assess due to the uninformative of the presented results.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your remarks and have included detailed responses to each of them in our answers. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1:

The title doesn't quite match the content. The article talks about increasing children's environmental knowledge, which may subsequently decrease Ecological Footprint.

Answer:

The title has been corrected as suggested, which we believe accurately reflects the issues presented in the work.

Comment 2:

References are usually not used in the abstract. The text should be edited. Authors should focus on the novelty of the study, methods, and results obtained.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comment. The abstract was rewritten by the recommendations. It was also shortened, and references to the literature were removed.

Comment 3:

The introduction is not written clearly and is not structured. This section should begin with the relevance of the research problem and be supported by references to the literature. The novelty of the research, the scientific background, and the corresponding research hypothesis must be stated. The experience of other researchers in studying the interplay between ecological footprint and early childhood education is not shown. The introduction needs to be rewritten carefully.

Answer:

As suggested, the Introduction has been rewritten, expanding on the issues and incorporating additional references for context.

Comment 4:

Research methods are not fully described. For example, what was the sample of students and children; when was the research conducted? Some of this data is listed in the results. Perhaps the criteria for conducting such studies have already been developed, then it is worth providing references.

Answer:

Thank you for this valuable attention. All relevant information, including participant selection, population, sample size, and data collection methods, is now explicitly addressed in the methods chapter (Lines: 144-146 & 204-211) and described in chapter 2.1, under "Setting and Participants".

Comment 5:

Most of the results are not informative and are not supported by figures and tables. For example, sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. There is no statistical analysis of the data, which does not allow us to assess the reliability of the results. In section 3.4, it would be appropriate to provide references. Provide more information about comparative analysis with similar programs in the world.

Answer:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As per your suggestion, we have added References from studies around the world have been added to the results section to relate our results to existing research better.

 Comment 6:

The authors described the significance of the research for society, but did not indicate what results were obtained for the first time, or how this study differs from similar ones in other countries. There are no references provided in the discussion.

Answer:

As suggested, we have supplemented the discussion with References from other studies to relate our research to other research better.

Comment 7:

The validity of the conclusions is difficult to assess due to the uninformative of the presented results.

Answer:

The conclusions have been rephrased and condensed. Thank you for your input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses interesting and important topics related to supporting competences related to the implementation of the concept of sustainable development. However, the article has many flaws that make it impossible to accept in its current form. Significant content improvement is needed:

1. Adding a part about literature analysis, it must be done meticulously and reliably (the number of sources cited in the article is very small).

2. Described in the Introduction the advantages of the adopted research approach, what makes it stand out, and what added value it has.

3. If possible, expand the Results section, it is the most important and the descriptions are very laconic and general.

4. In the Discussion section, add comparisons and references to research by other authors, perhaps from other countries, parts of the world, from highly cited sources. This is also an extremely important part to initiate a scientific discussion.

5. In the Conclusion, add a description of the limitations of the study and plans for future research.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your remarks and have included detailed responses to each of them in our answers. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1:

Adding a part about literature analysis, it must be done meticulously and reliably (the number of sources cited in the article is very small).

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comment. As suggested, the Introduction has been rewritten, expanding on the issues and incorporating additional references for context.

Comment 2:

Describe in the Introduction the advantages of the adopted research approach, what makes it stand out, and what added value it has.

Answer:

All relevant information, including research approach, participant selection, and population was added to the Introduction and described in chapter 2.1, under "Setting and Participants".

Comment 3:

If possible, expand the Results section, it is the most important and the descriptions are very laconic and general.

Answer:

As per your suggestion, we have added References from studies around the world have been added to the results section to relate our results to existing research better.

Comment 4:

In the Discussion section, add comparisons and references to research by other authors, perhaps from other countries, or parts of the world, from highly cited sources. This is also an extremely important part of initiating a scientific discussion.

Answer:

As suggested, we have supplemented the discussion with References from other studies to relate our research to other research better.

Comment 5:

In the Conclusion, add a description of the limitations of the study and plans for future research.

Answer:

The conclusions have been rephrased and condensed. Thank you for your input. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on the findings of an educational program on students' environmental knowledge.  The manuscript lacks access to data which would provide strength to the arguments being made and logical coherence.  The claims being made need to be substantiated by data.  The basic outline of the paper is interesting and could contribute to scholarship if data were included to allow the reader to truly understand the details of the program and the details of the results.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.

The Introduction has been rewritten, expanding on the issues and incorporating additional references for context, we have added References from studies around the world to the results section to relate our results to existing research better and the conclusions have been rephrased and condensed.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript titled “Nurturing Eco-Literate Minds: Unveiling the Pathways to Minimize Ecological Footprint in Early Childhood Education” My evaluation is as follows:

 

General comments

·      The authors have attempted a moderate revision and responded to some of my earlier concerns. However, most of my earlier suggestions were not responded to. There is no issue with that but it would be beneficial for the authors to give a statement on why no revision is required. In this case, a rebuttal response will be beneficial.

·         The focus of the study is topical and coherence has been improved. However, the authors have not stated the specific objectives yet.  

·       The authors have still used the very strong words I thought should be avoided. These terms like: meticulously, thorough, transformative, resounding, beacon, testament, profound, unmistakable. The authors should give an explanation that qualifies why they left the words.

 

Specific comments

 

Title

·         The title has been revised.  

 

Abstract:

·         The abstract has been revised. It is self-self-contained and complete. However, the authors have not clearly stated the problem statement and objective of the study. The methodology is not clear yet. I still feel that this area need to be worked on.  

·         The aim of the study, the methods, a brief statement of the results and a conclusion should be very clearly stated.

 

Introduction

Authors have improved on this. However, the aims of the study are still not specifically stated.

 

Methodology

The manuscript presents itself as a review article and yet data was collected from 624 pupils. How this data was collected should be highlighted and my earlier comments were not met.  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be done after final edition

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review of our manuscript and the invaluable insights you provided. Your comments have played a crucial role in refining the quality of our work, and we are grateful for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1:

We acknowledge your point regarding the need to state specific objectives. Following your suggestion, we have incorporated detailed information outlining the specific objectives of our study.

Comment 2:

Your observation about the use of strong language has been duly noted. In response to your feedback, we have revised the wording to ensure a more subtle expression throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3:

We appreciate your feedback on the clarity of the methodology. Taking your advice into account, we have worked on providing a more detailed and transparent summary of our methodology to enhance its clarity.

Comment 4:

Your suggestion regarding the explicit presentation of the study's aim, methods, results, and conclusion has been taken seriously. We have carefully revised these sections to ensure that they are clearly stated and provide a comprehensive overview of our study.

Once again, we extend our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your expertise has significantly contributed to the improvement of our work.

Thank you for your commitment to the peer review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to solving a current problem of increasing environmental competence of the people. The research results are significant for Israeli education. The authors tried to edit the article according to the requirements of the reviewers. However, some recommendations were not taken into account. Statistical analysis is missing.

Title

The new title corresponds to the content of the article.

Abstract

The abstract has been changed slightly. The authors did not remove the references: Line 13, 17, 22

Introduction

The introduction has been updated. However, as before, the section begins with the goals of the research and not with the relevance of the research problem. The authors must first pose the problem that the article is aimed at solving, that is, show the importance of environmental thinking in society. The text needs editing, there are typos.

Materials and Methods

The research methods are described quite fully.

Line 293 - It is better to provide links to sites in the references.

Results

The authors have revised the section and added information. The sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 are not supported by figures or tables.

Discussion

The authors have revised the section and added information. Now this section is informative.

Conclusions

Conclusions follow from the results. The article will be of interest to readers whose scientific interests are related to the education of environmental literacy of the younger generation. However, it is a pity that the reliability of the results and conclusions is not supported by statistical data processing.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your remarks and have included detailed responses to each of them in our answers. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1: The abstract has been changed slightly. The authors did not remove the references: Line 13, 17, 22

Answer:  We are grateful for your observation regarding the abstract. Following your suggestion, we have removed the references from lines 13, 17, and 22.

Comment 2: The introduction has been updated. However, as before, the section begins with the goals of the research and not with the relevance of the research problem. The authors must first pose the problem that the article is aimed at solving, that is, show the importance of environmental thinking in society. The text needs editing, there are typos.

Answer: We understand the importance of framing the research problem before delving into the goals of the study. Accordingly, we have revised the introduction to first highlight the relevance of the research problem and its significance in society. Additionally, we have addressed typos and made necessary edits for clarity.

Comment 3: Line 293 - It is better to provide links to sites in the references.

Answer: In response to your suggestion, we have moved the link from Line 293 to the references section.

Comment 4: Conclusions follow from the results. The article will be of interest to readers whose scientific interests are related to the education of environmental literacy of the younger generation. However, it is a pity that the reliability of the results and conclusions is not supported by statistical data processing.

Answer: To enhance the reliability of our results and conclusions, we have included references from relevant studies around the world. This addition provides a stronger foundation by linking our findings to existing research in the field.

Once again, we extend our gratitude for your valuable input, which has been crucial in refining our manuscript. We believe that these changes contribute significantly to the overall strength and clarity of our work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most comments have been corrected.

However, the literature analysis was not sufficiently extended. Additionally, in the Introduction section, you should develop a description of the issue based on literature analysis.

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.

The literature analysis and the Introduction have been rewritten, expanding on the issues and incorporating additional references for context, we have added References from studies around the world to relate our results and to existing research better.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on the findings of an educational program on students' environmental knowledge.  The manuscript still lacks access to data which would provide strength to the arguments being made and logical coherence.  The claims being made need to be substantiated by data.  The details of the program and the raw data should be included as a supplemental information file.  The basic outline of the paper is interesting and could contribute to scholarship if data were included to allow the reader to truly understand the details (not the summary) of the program and the details (not the summary) of the results.  For this reason, contribution to scholarship is very low, structure and clarity are very low, and academic soundness is very low.

With the large volume of additions, sections of the paper are very redundant, of which there are numerous cases of redundancy within each section.  There is no reason this paper needs to be over the word count.  The section on ethical consideration should be a brief single paragraph with a reference to a supplemental information file where the rest of section 2.9 is documented.  

This paper is not written for an academic journal, but rather a news journal article for an educational magazine.  Data is missing to substantiate any claims that are being made.

 

I have reread the paper. English language is fine considering each sentence as a standalone sentence. However, the overall paper is poorly written. The data is missing and should be included as an appendix which was shared in my first review and disregarded by the authors. There is significant redundancy in the writing, and there is no reason this paper would need to be even close to the word limit. The structure of the paper is poor as well, with lit review aspects in all sections of the paper. I still feel this paper should be rejected.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The revision of the paper is very difficult to read.  Without the strike through of text, the replaced phrases are shown along with the original phrases.  I spent multiple hours reading, and attempting to understand what the authors were intending to include and intending to strike.  Another review is needed where text to be removed has a line through it and text to be added is in red. 

Author Response

4. Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your remarks and have included detailed responses to each of them in our answers. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1: The manuscript still lacks access to data which would provide strength to the arguments being made and logical coherence.  The claims being made need to be substantiated by data.  The details of the program and the raw data should be included as a supplemental information file. 

Answer:  We acknowledge the importance of substantiating our claims with data, and we appreciate your recommendation to include details of the program and raw data as supplemental information. In response to your feedback, we added details of the program and presented our data, but we do not see the importance of adding raw data. We also added similar studies done around the world to strengthen our assertion.

Comment 2: With the large volume of additions, sections of the paper are very redundant, of which there are numerous cases of redundancy within each section.  There is no reason this paper needs to be over the word count.

Answer: We understand your concerns about redundancy and exceeding the word count. In our revisions, we have diligently worked to eliminate redundancy, streamline the content, and ensure that the paper adheres to the specified word limit. We believe these changes contribute to improved clarity and readability.

Comment 3: The section on ethical consideration should be a brief single paragraph with a reference to a supplemental information file where the rest of section 2.9 is documented.

Answer: In response to your suggestion, we significantly shortened chapter 2.9 and we have moved the link from 2.9 to the references section.

Comment 4: This paper is not written for an academic journal, but rather a news journal article for an educational magazine.  Data is missing to substantiate any claims that are being made.

Answer: We have carefully restructured the paper to enhance its organization, reducing redundancy and ensuring that lit review aspects are appropriately placed.

Comment 5: I have reread the paper. English language is fine considering each sentence as a standalone sentence. However, the overall paper is poorly written. The data is missing and should be included as an appendix which was shared in my first review and disregarded by the authors. There is significant redundancy in the writing, and there is no reason this paper would need to be even close to the word limit. The structure of the paper is poor as well, with lit review aspects in all sections of the paper. I still feel this paper should be rejected.

Answer: We have carefully considered each of your comments and made revisions to address the concerns raised. The collected data has been thoroughly presented in the article, and we believe that additional raw data as an appendix is not necessary. We have ensured that the relevant information is clearly communicated within the main body of the manuscript. To address concerns about redundancy and word count, we have conducted a comprehensive revision to eliminate unnecessary words and streamline the text. The article has been shortened to enhance clarity and conciseness. We recognize your feedback regarding the poor structure of the paper and the presence of lit review aspects in various sections. In response, we have conducted restructuring to ensure a more logical flow. We believe that these revisions significantly improve the paper, and we hope that the updated version meets the standards of the journal.

Once again, we extend our gratitude for your valuable input, which has been crucial in refining our manuscript. We believe that these changes contribute significantly to the overall strength and clarity of our work.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made revisions to address the concerns raised.

Comment 1:  The authors have attempted a moderate revision and responded to some of my earlier concerns. However, most they have not fully responded to my two critical issues about the study objectives and methodology

Answer: In response to your concerns about the study objectives, we have revisited and refined the aims of our research to ensure clarity and alignment with the scope of the study. We have revised the objectives section to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the goals and intended outcomes of our investigation. We believe that these modifications have strengthened the overall coherence and purpose of the study.

Comment 2: The focus of the study is topical and coherence has been improved. However, the authors have not stated the specific objectives yet.

Answer:  We have carefully reviewed your comment regarding the lack of specific objectives in our manuscript. In response, we have updated the article to include clear and concise objectives that outline the aims of our research. These objectives provide a roadmap for the study and help to enhance the overall clarity and structure of the manuscript (100-115).

Comment 3: Authors have improved on this. However, the aims of the study are still not specifically stated. In line 28, the authors have referred to this study as a literature review. It should be referred as a study throughout since they collected data and analyzed results.

Answer: Thanks for your attention, we have ensured consistent terminology throughout the manuscript, referring to our work as a study rather than a literature review, to accurately reflect the data collection and analysis process.

Comment 4: In line 343, the authors addressed misconception related to energy use – can this be formulated to be an objective, then indicate what this misconceptions are and how they were dealt with after the exposure?

Answer: In response to your suggestion, we have restructured the paper to ensure that the objectives are clearly delineated, including addressing the misconception related to energy use as a specific objective. Furthermore, we have provided a detailed explanation of the misconceptions identified and how they were addressed following exposure in our study.

Comment 5: In line 422-424, the authors have identified two broad objectives. (i) Impart foundational knowledge (ii) cultivate a lasting ethos. This are difficult to measure objectives and it is not clear in the results how this was achieved.

Answer: We acknowledge the challenge of quantifying these objectives in the results section of our paper. To address this concern, we have provided detailed descriptions of our methodology and outlined specific actions we will take in the short term (at the end of the course) and beyond to achieve these objectives. By doing so, we aim to provide clarity on how we intend to measure and assess the outcomes of our research efforts. 

Comment 6: In line 435, the authors say the primary objective was to enhance awareness and understanding. How was this measured? I propose the authors to use the respondent’s perception/awareness and then compare the perception at the beginning of the experiment and at the end. This will give a clear picture of the outcome by comparing the two instances. They will then use the difference observations (i) at the beginning and then (ii) and the end of the experiment to determine the measured change in perception of the measured attributes

Answer: We appreciate your recommendation to assess respondents' perceptions and awareness at the beginning and end of the experiment to gauge any changes in perception over time. We agree that this approach would provide a clearer picture of the outcomes of our research efforts. we have outlined in detail our methodology for measuring changes in perception and awareness in the short term (at the end of the course) and beyond.

Comment 7: In section 2.6, the authors talk of evaluation at the beginning and end. However, the results do not indicate how this test was formulated, what it contained, whether the same test was administered in both occasions and after how long.

Answer: We appreciate your attention to detail, and in response to your feedback, we have re-edited the entire Chapter 2. Specifically, we have compiled units 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 to provide a more cohesive and comprehensive overview of the evaluation process. Each issue raised has been addressed with specific answers provided to ensure clarity on how the evaluation was formulated, what it contained, whether the same test was administered on both occasions, and the duration between evaluations.

Comment 8: In section 2.7, the authors should tell the reader the procedures they followed in this experiment. For example the specific strategy they employed and how.

Answer: We have taken your suggestion and re-edited the entire Chapter 2 to provide more detailed information about the procedures followed in the experiment. Specifically, we have included a thorough explanation of the specific strategy employed and how it was implemented.

Comment 9: In section 2.8, which components did the authors analyze and how?

Answer: In response to your query regarding section 2.8, we re-edited the entire Chapter 2 and have provided a detailed analysis of the components outlined in section 2.4.

Comment 10: In section 2.9, the ethical considerations describes here do not apply for this research. Sounds like the authors basically lifted the Holon Institute of Technology’s ethical considerations and placed here. The authors would just say, Holon Institute of Technology ethical considerations was followed. They should only give the specifics that apply to this study, how you maneuvered the ethical considerations in this study.

Answer: In response to your comment, we have revised the section to specifically highlight how the ethical considerations were maneuvered in this study. While we initially provided a broader overview of ethical considerations, we have now focused on detailing the specific ethical protocols and procedures in section 2.5.

Comment 11: Section 3.2, shaping public opinion. Was this an objective, how did you measure it? Where are the results of its measurement?

Answer: We measured this objective through surveys and trivia quizzes administered to the participants in the course, as mentioned in the manuscript. The results of the measurement, including insights into changes in public opinion within the circles surrounding the participants, are presented in Section 3.3.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on the findings of an educational program on students' environmental knowledge.  The authors have responded to the review process that providing raw data to support claims is not warranted; however for peer reviewed academic literature, the manuscript lacks access to critical data which is what would provide strength to the arguments being made and logical coherence.  The claims being made need to be substantiated by data.  

The paper continues to be verbose.  There seems to be no reason for this paper to exceed the word limit for the journal.

The main point of the paper is that students' learning increases with teaching.  This is not novel.  Schools across the world administer pre-program tests and compare to post-program tests to document learning.  It is not surprising that elementary students do not know where power comes from, just like they don't know where water comes from.  They open the faucet and flush the toilet.  The water comes and the water goes.  After being taught, they have the concept of water infrastructure.  After being taught about energy sources, they have learned the concept of energy sources and the associated infrastructure.

There is an imprecise use of the terms students, educators and pupils.  Line 172-178:  181 HIT students and 624 pupils.  Line 293:  624 pupils and 181 educators.  Figure 1 pupils.  Section 3 uses students and pupils, seemingly referring to the 624.  

Line 391 uses the term substantial.  What is substantial?  Is that 25%, 50%, 90%?

How many hours of instruction per pupil were dedicated to the Green Ambassador Course?  Section 2.6 tells us 12 sessions across 4 months.  What was the length of each session in minutes or hours?

Another interesting insight that may lend valuable academic insight to the researcher community includes the demographic make up of the populations of educators (aka students) and the students (aka pupils).  Things like the geographic features of the land where their homes are located, professions of their family members, education level of their family members, poverty level of the household, age, ... might offer some research-worthy insights.

In summary, the main point of the paper that teaching improves student knowledge is not novel.  There needs to be analysis of data to tease out interesting and novel insights.

 

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made revisions to address the concerns raised.

Comment 1:  The paper continues to be verbose.  There seems to be no reason for this paper to exceed the word limit for the journal.

Answer: In response to your suggestion, we have re-edited the article to consolidate and even reduce sections where possible. We aimed to ensure that the manuscript adheres to the word limit specified by the journal while maintaining the clarity and coherence of the content.

Comment 2: There is an imprecise use of the terms students, educators and pupils.  Line 172-178:  181 HIT students and 624 pupils.  Line 293:  624 pupils and 181 educators.  Figure 1 pupils.  Section 3 uses students and pupils, seemingly referring to the 624.

Answer:  Thank you for your attention to detail and for pointing out the imprecise use of terms in our manuscript. All details regarding the terms "students," "educators," and "pupils" have been carefully reviewed and corrected throughout the manuscript to ensure uniformity and precision in their usage. We believe that these revisions have enhanced the clarity and accuracy of the text.

Comment 3: Line 391 uses the term substantial.  What is substantial?  Is that 25%, 50%, 90%?.

Answer: In response to your query, we have re-edited the text and clarified the definitions to provide a more precise understanding of what constitutes "substantial.".

Comment 4: How many hours of instruction per pupil were dedicated to the Green Ambassador Course?  Section 2.6 tells us 12 sessions across 4 months.  What was the length of each session in minutes or hours?

Answer: In response to your query, we have added the information regarding the length of each session in lines 231-234 of the manuscript.

Comment 5: Another interesting insight that may lend valuable academic insight to the researcher community includes the demographic make up of the populations of educators (aka students) and the students (aka pupils).  Things like the geographic features of the land where their homes are located, professions of their family members, education level of their family members, poverty level of the household, age, ... might offer some research-worthy insights.

Answer: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the potential inclusion of demographic information about the populations of educators and students in our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion and agree that such information could provide valuable academic insights to the research community. we have added relevant demographic information, including geographic features of the land where their homes are located, professions and education levels of family members, poverty levels of households, and age, in lines 200-205 of the manuscript.

Comment 6: In summary, the main point of the paper that teaching improves student knowledge is not novel.  There needs to be analysis of data to tease out interesting and novel insights.

Answer: We appreciate your insight and your emphasis on the importance of making meaningful contributions to the field. we have re-edited the article to refine our specific goals and to emphasize the significance of our research and its potential contributions. We have also conducted additional analysis of the data to uncover new insights and enhance the originality of our findings.

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a comprehensive correction of my previous two rounds of comments. 

The manuscript is now greatly improved. The authors should do a final revision and correct minor grammatical and formatting errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reread the manuscript for minor errors

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough review and for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript. We are pleased to hear that the revisions have enhanced the clarity and quality of the article.

Following your suggestion, we conduct a final revision to address any remaining minor grammatical and formatting errors. We aim to ensure that the manuscript meets the highest standards of English language proficiency.

We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in refining our work. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of the article

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on the findings of an educational program that supports students' environmental knowledge as well as societal unification in a divided society. 

Comment 2 from the last review noted the confusing use of the term students/pupils/educators.  In this version, the HIT participants were called students, and the elementary participants were called pupils.  At page 8, lines 318, 329, 334, 347, 351, and 353, at page 9, lines 358, 361, 364, 369, 373, 379, and 384, at page 10, lines 390 and 391, at page 11 line 486, at page 12 line 492, the term students was applied to what seems to be the elementary participants, not the HIT participants.  If the authors meant this to be the HIT participants, then it is correctly worded.  If the authors meant this to be the elementary participants, then the terminology is confusing with the previous use of the term students associated with HIT participants.  

Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 are not results.  These sections reference other literature.  This does not fit with results because these works are not the authors' results.  These sections refer to Swedish curriculum, Norway, US and Canada, Columbia, and so forth.  Lit review is confounded with Results.

At line 559 (very late in the paper) an acronym EE is defined but then never used anywhere in the paper.  There is no reason to introduce an acronym where it will not be used later in the paper.  And for a term that isn't used profusely through the paper, there's no point to using the acronym.  

While it is understood that the authors do not feel that inclusion of raw data is needed, please note that claims are not substantiated.  From an academic perspective, data is what substantiates claims.  

This paper is more of a perspective paper than an article.  

 

 

Author Response

Dear Honorable Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your remarks and have included detailed responses to each of them in our answers. We have made significant changes in the manuscript based on your feedback.
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Comment 1:

Comment 2 from the last review noted the confusing use of the term students/pupils/educators.  In this version, the HIT participants were called students, and the elementary participants were called pupils.  At page 8, lines 318, 329, 334, 347, 351, and 353, at page 9, lines 358, 361, 364, 369, 373, 379, and 384, at page 10, lines 390 and 391, at page 11 line 486, at page 12 line 492, the term students was applied to what seems to be the elementary participants, not the HIT participants.  If the authors meant this to be the HIT participants, then it is correctly worded.  If the authors meant this to be the elementary participants, then the terminology is confusing with the previous use of the term students associated with HIT participants.

Answer:

Thank you for your careful review and for bringing attention to the potential confusion regarding the terminology used in the manuscript. We appreciate your diligence in identifying areas where the terms "students" and "pupils" may have been inadvertently interchanged. Upon reevaluation, we have made the necessary adjustments to ensure clarity and consistency in the terminology used to refer to participants in the study. The term "students" now exclusively denotes participants in the HIT, while "pupils" refers specifically to elementary participants.

Comment 2:

Sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 are not results.  These sections reference other literature.  This does not fit with results because these works are not the authors' results.  These sections refer to Swedish curriculum, Norway, US and Canada, Columbia, and so forth.  Lit review is confounded with Results.

Answer:

In response to your feedback, we have made the necessary revisions to ensure that the results section focuses exclusively on the findings of our research, while the literature review remains distinct in its own section. We have integrated the relevant results from other countries, such as Sweden, Norway, the United States, Canada, and Colombia, into the broader context of our study within Section 1.1. This adjustment aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the global landscape surrounding the topic under investigation.

Comment 3:

At line 559 (very late in the paper) an acronym EE is defined but then never used anywhere in the paper.  There is no reason to introduce an acronym where it will not be used later in the paper.  And for a term that isn't used profusely through the paper, there's no point to using the acronym.

Answer:

We completely agree with your assessment that introducing an acronym, especially one that is not used elsewhere in the paper, can be confusing and unnecessary. Upon reviewing the section where the acronym "EE" was defined, we have decided to remove it altogether, as it does not serve any essential purpose in enhancing the clarity or readability of the manuscript.

Comment 4:

While it is understood that the authors do not feel that inclusion of raw data is needed, please note that claims are not substantiated.  From an academic perspective, data is what substantiates claims. 

This paper is more of a perspective paper than an article.

Answer:

In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed our manuscript and have taken steps to enhance the substantiation of our claims. We have added detailed descriptions and incorporated relevant data where necessary to provide a stronger foundation for our assertions. By integrating these changes, we aim to ensure that our paper meets the standards expected of academic research and provides readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the topics discussed.