Conceptions of Portuguese Science Teachers on the Concept of Ecoethics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is about a topical theme and involved a literature review on environmental ethics and a questionnaire done to high school biology and geology teachers to understand their proficiency in Ecoethics. The objective was to check if teachers understand what is and what are the main concepts in ecoethics. The author used an online questionnaire and then ordered the answers into categories which were already defined and got to the conclusion that most Portuguese biology and geology teachers do not know enough about ecoethics and that impairs its potential inclusion in their classes. 

There are two components that need to be improved. The first one is regarding the empirical work and the second one is more on the concept.

Some points regarding the survey that need further explanation:

1. I believe the actual questionnaire is not shown as an annex, thus limiting the readers full understanding of how the questions were posed. For eg. did it only have 1 open question asking what ecoethics is (apart from the characterization)?

2. If it had only one open question, why would the author consider the answer that falls into the category "ethics applied to the environment" as a sign of not understanding what ecoethics is? Simplistically and broadly speaking that is what it is. Nothing is said about the answers regarding its length and/or the depth, if some were more detailed than others, if an answer could be included in more than one category and why were there a priori categories ( why were they not defined according to the answers (as the author had to do with one category).

3. It would be interesting to know how many teachers are active, to understand if the almost 300 that answered is a relevant number. It would also be interesting to know if the answers from geology and biology teachers differed in any way. The data could have been better explored also with the characterizations made, namely gender and answers, age/or time of teaching and answers for example.  

4. There is no mention of philosophy teachers, who might also be relevant for teaching ecoethics?

5. As important as the teachers knowing in advance the concepts of ecoethics it is also understanding if they have room to teach it in their usually packed classes, sometimes even with little time to finish the official programmes.

6. The teachers involved in the survey taught in 6 different levels, to students from 12/13 years old to 17/18 years old. Should they all be treated in the same way? Would they need to convey different levels of knowledge to students according to their age? This is not discussed.

As a summary, we need more information and better exploration of the data collected on the empirical part as to understand better the context and scope of the paper.

The second component of this review is about the theme itself.

The literature review is fairly complete in what regards environmental ethics history and evolution and some of the ways in which it is usually depicted, namely anthropocentric vs non-anthropocentric, eco-centric vs biocentric. Nevertheless, some issues still need discussion:

1.    Why is Environmental virtue ethics missing ( it might be important to convey to students a way at thinking and analysing their own understanding and behaviour)

2.    Why the emphasis given to Christian ethics (which does not seem to match most of the current discussions within environmental ethics)?

3.    It would also be relevant to understand why the author didn’t consider the right of Nature as important and detached from the duties (All Ethical Imperatives in the table are a duty to human beings) of humans towards nature, having been considered only a posteriori.

4.    The selection of the 4 a priori categories is not explained; neither why, nor how, in summary if it had a specific conceptual a priori setting.

5.    The discussion between environment or nature and environmental ethics or eco-ethics should be explored, to better set the scope and context of the paper. Environmental ethics is nowadays a burgeoning field with disparate themes that go from the more traditional to ethics of climate change, future generations, environmental justice, pollution just to name a few. If the author wants to limit the study only to nature and not to the more general environment and to concentrate mainly on ethics related to biodiversity or conservation or to nature, and not the large themes environmental ethics is now looking at, this must be stated more upfront.

The scope of the paper is limited in the sense that it would be interesting to understand when in the school system, where (which subject), and how could the concepts of eco-ethics be included in the official system. While it is obvious that this is outside the scope of paper, if the author could just give some overall idea or some specific examples the reader would be more enlightened.

If the author could clarify some of these issues the paper could be enriched and become more relevant to the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General concept comments.

Article: While a valuable and novel contribution to ecoethical education of teachers, the article has weaknesses.  First and foremost, the article refers three times (see lines 350, 354 and 380) to the “open-ended question” teachers were surveyed about, but this reviewer cannot find the exact wording of that question.   This question is central and essential to the surveys’ method, was used to exclude responses “which deviate from the question asked” (line 435) and is required in any attempt to replicate the survey elsewhere.  In the absence of explicit wording of the survey question, the survey’s method cannot be applied any further. Second, the purpose of the paper is not disclosed until line 96: the reader should be apprised of the need to study teachers’ ecoethical understanding much earlier in the introduction.  Then, the copious philosophic and historical overview of ecoethics would be more relevant to the paper.  Third, Table 1 is very useful. Its logical categories should be used to organize and highlight the extensive historical material in the introduction, so that the reader is guided from the outset into five main approaches to ecoethics, as seen by the author(s).   Furthermore, Table 1 could be applied far more effectively to analysis of respondents’ data in the discussion.  While Table 3 shows useful distinctions between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric patterns in teachers’ responses, invoking other patterns such as “earth ethics”, “deep ecology” and “biocentrism” in analyzing teachers’ responses would enhance the paper’s strengths. 

Specific comments.  The tendency of the paper to collapse long lists of terms into a single sentence, with terms separated by either commas or semicolons renders good information difficult to comprehend.   See lines 283 to 309 as an example.  Internal staff editors also need to attend to the value of shorter paragraphs formed around clear topic sentences.  See page 4 as an example needing extensive editing for readability and clarity.

          On page 3, lines 108-119, the meaning and source of “three sustainable development goals (SDG)” needs to be provided.

          The introduction to ecoethics is comprehensive.  Nonetheless, this reviewer is puzzled by the notable absence of words such as “religion”, “government”, “European Union or EU”, and only tangential mention of “political”, “climate” and “Christian”.  If it weren’t for “Portuguese” in the title, abstract, and place of employment for teachers in the survey, the article would give no indication about the unique situation of teaching ecoethics in Portugal. The paper makes the case that good ecoethical education is vital for contemporary society: the paper should also at least acknowledge historical and current influences on ecoethics in Portugal,

Table 1 is an excellent summary of ecoethical approaches.  What contribution – if any – did this summary make to composing the “open-ended question” cited in lines 350, 354, and 380?  How is the abundant introductory material relevant to the central element of the project’s methodology?

General questions.

Overall, the manuscript was clear (except for certain issues cited above), relevant and well-structured. References are very relevant, but given their historical nature, often older than five years.   There is a notable lack of references or commentary on current ecoethical issues which might be relevant to Portuguese ecoethics, e.g. climate change, the EU “Euorpean Green Deal”, COP 26 and COP 27 conferences. Given the apparent lack of explicit wording for the “open ended question” at the heart of the paper’s methodology, I cannot determine the soundness of the experimental design nor its reproducibility.  Conclusions are consistent with the data collected, although I think the paper established far more ethical authority in its introduction than it applied to analyzing respondents’ patterns. 

Rating.

The paper correctly asserts this is a novel study, and correctly refers to different but related studies.  The paper correctly sees the topic of ecoethics in Portuguese schools as significant,  

This paper would appear to fit within the journal’s scope and quality standards.

Once a clear and explicit statement of the “open-ended question” is provided, the paper’s experimental design and data analysis is appropriate.

This article could be of interest to the journal’s readership if its educational purpose is clearly stated at the beginning of the article.

The article – in principle – warrants publishing because it advances knowledge about teacher attitudes towards ecoethics.

The tendency of the paper to collapse long lists of terms into a single sentence, with terms separated by either commas or semicolons renders good information difficult to comprehend.   See lines 283 to 309 as an example.  Internal staff editors also need to attend to the value of shorter paragraphs formed around clear topic sentences.  See page 4 as an example needing extensive editing for readability and clarity. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the study is original. The study brings new relevant findings. The topic generally fits the focus of the journal, although it is interdisciplinary. A general introduction is followed by a presentation of ecoethics and key publications that contributed to its foundation. Peter Singer's introduction is interesting. The search for influential works and works is really wide. It is noteworthy that the author does not avoid reflecting on films. The table Ecoethics matrices and main modalities is interesting and useful. In this context, the author also reflects on Hans Jonas' principle of responsibility. The authors present various modalities of environmental ethics. They discuss ecoethics in the context of science education. Most understood the gross subject as the study of moral relations between humans and nature and others. The study also brings its empirical part. Data processing methods are good. The results show that most teachers spoke little in depth about environmental ethics. The analysis of the respondents' answers is quite thorough, it maps the perception and accent of ecoethics within the teaching of natural science subjects. Environment and nature are highly interpreted concepts among teachers, which teachers take as quasi synonyms. According to the survey, ecoethics is beginning to resonate in the practical teaching of biology and geology teachers in Portugal. Nevertheless, it is desirable to deepen the knowledge of teachers in this direction. There are plenty of bibliographical sources. They are definitely up to date. The authors used many really reputable journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Most previous concerns have been addressed.  However, this paper needs to tell its audience in the first paragraph of the Introduction about the topic of this paper.  The current version does not inform its audience of the paper's purpose until lines 145 and following.  This is a manuscript for Education Science, not the Journal of Ethics: the paper should b written for the former, not the latter.

Attention is needed for concise paragraphs organized around a clear topic sentence, and in punctuating long lists of items within a paragraph.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf