Active Learning Affects Children’s Intention to Act and Awareness of the Importance of Nature and Understanding Environmental Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract
The abstract is informative and complete, though its fluency could be improved.
The statement that the study aims to examine how a single experiment on ecological concepts can "deepen students’ perception" is rather optimistic and unrealistic. Numerous studies on biophilia and nature connection demonstrate that perception is a personality-related trait that does not change easily. Increasing awareness of the environment and non-human species requires a long process involving months of exposure to nature, rather than a brief intervention or isolated experience.

Lines 18–19: Does the study aim to increase individual perception of the possibility to engage with pro-environmental behaviors, or enhance attitudes towards them and willingness to adopt them?

Introduction
This section effectively introduces the key concepts. However, additional references from environmental psychology and ecopsychology studies would be useful, particularly to expand on lines 41–43. The reasons behind the difficulty in taking responsibility for improving environmental conditions should not be attributed solely to the educational gap but also to several other factors. These include the predominance of cognitive activities over affective-based actions, the clash between climate change communication and individuals' sensitivity (which can lead to anxiety), and the evident discrepancy between the impact of individual actions versus collective effects.

The experiment is presented as an ecology experiment, but since it does not involve populations and instead focuses on the observation of developmental stages of individual larvae, it would be more appropriate to define it as an environmental biology experiment.

Methods
Line 160: Add a period after (CEPS).
Lines 159–166: Were the eight additional items psychometrically evaluated? It is highly problematic that items from the scale, designed and tested to capture perception, were combined with declarative climate change concepts. These are not well-suited to measure children's perception but rather seem to indicate how much they remember from what was told to them. This methodological choice is therefore highly debatable and weakens the approach. It must be properly justified to support its validity.

Results
Why were no statistical significance tests conducted? It is strongly recommended to perform them and report the p-values.

Discussion
Lines 256–257: The phrase referring to a "clear increase" is overly optimistic. If it refers to environmental awareness, it is acceptable, but not if it pertains to perception. It is recommended to rephrase this for clarity and to avoid confusion with the neuropsychological concept of perception.
Lines 281–285: This passage is unclear. Could you verify and clarify it?
Lines 350–353: A broader set of references should be included to better represent the vast literature in this field.
Line 373: Typographical error  (“an example” instead of “am example”).
The lack of references to biophilia is a major drawback and weakens the discussion.

Author Response

Abstract

The abstract is informative and complete, though its fluency could be improved.

The statement that the study aims to examine how a single experiment on ecological concepts can "deepen students’ perception" is rather optimistic and unrealistic. Numerous studies on biophilia and nature connection demonstrate that perception is a personality-related trait that does not change easily. Increasing awareness of the environment and non-human species requires a long process involving months of exposure to nature, rather than a brief intervention or isolated experience.

Lines 18–19: Does the study aim to increase individual perception of the possibility to engage with pro-environmental behaviors, or enhance attitudes towards them and willingness to adopt them?

[The reviewer made very good suggestions. We lost of a bit the focus of the paper since we used the Environmental Perception Survey, but we agree that that survey is not really for perception but for orientation/intention to act. We have now changed the wording in different sections of the paper, including the title.]

Introduction

This section effectively introduces the key concepts. However, additional references from environmental psychology and ecopsychology studies would be useful, particularly to expand on lines 41–43. The reasons behind the difficulty in taking responsibility for improving environmental conditions should not be attributed solely to the educational gap but also to several other factors. These include the predominance of cognitive activities over affective-based actions, the clash between climate change communication and individuals' sensitivity (which can lead to anxiety), and the evident discrepancy between the impact of individual actions versus collective effects.

[We have now added the suggested topics in the section.]

The experiment is presented as an ecology experiment, but since it does not involve populations and instead focuses on the observation of developmental stages of individual larvae, it would be more appropriate to define it as an environmental biology experiment.

[changed]

 

Methods

Line 160: Add a period after (CEPS).

[added]

Lines 159–166: Were the eight additional items psychometrically evaluated? It is highly problematic that items from the scale, designed and tested to capture perception, were combined with declarative climate change concepts. These are not well-suited to measure children's perception but rather seem to indicate how much they remember from what was told to them. This methodological choice is therefore highly debatable and weakens the approach. It must be properly justified to support its validity.

[We agree with the reviewer, we checked the original paper more in depth and even if they name this tool perception survey, they actually use it more to define orientations/intention to act. We have now changed the wording throughout the manuscript.]

 

Results

Why were no statistical significance tests conducted? It is strongly recommended to perform them and report the p-values.

[the outputs of the statistical tests are reported in the appendix to avoid having long tables in the middle of the narrative]

 

Discussion

Lines 256–257: The phrase referring to a "clear increase" is overly optimistic. If it refers to environmental awareness, it is acceptable, but not if it pertains to perception. It is recommended to rephrase this for clarity and to avoid confusion with the neuropsychological concept of perception.

[We have now changed the wording also based on previous comments.]

Lines 281–285: This passage is unclear. Could you verify and clarify it?

[We have rephrased that sentence.]

Lines 350–353: A broader set of references should be included to better represent the vast literature in this field.

[We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, also linked with the next comment on biophilia.]

Line 373: Typographical error  (“an example” instead of “am example”).

[Changed.]

The lack of references to biophilia is a major drawback and weakens the discussion.

[We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We realised we touched on biophilia but we did not really specified the concept. We have now included more reference to it in the discussion but also in the introduction.]

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the impact of active learning strategies on children's environmental awareness and perception. Altough the research question is relevant and contributes to the field of environmental education, there are several critical issues regarding the theoretical groudning, study design, sampling, and statistical analysis. In particular, the introduction shows an overview of environmental education and active learning. However, it lacks a clear articulation of the research gap. In addition, the authors did not provide a clear theoretical model that can justify their research. The hyopthesis is vagguely stated and need to be operationalised in detail. Then, the references are dated, and more recent studies should be included in the introduction (and discussion). As for the study design, the justification for selecting 150 childrens in unclear. As the authors used a path analysis, I wonder if they performed a power analysis to determine the minimum sample size. As path analysis require a consistent number of cases, maybe the study could be underpowered. The results section is drated, figures lack clear explaination. Overall, I believe that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form.

Author Response

The manuscript investigates the impact of active learning strategies on children's environmental awareness and perception. Altough the research question is relevant and contributes to the field of environmental education, there are several critical issues regarding the theoretical groudning, study design, sampling, and statistical analysis. In particular, the introduction shows an overview of environmental education and active learning. However, it lacks a clear articulation of the research gap.

[We agree that there were some elements which were unclear in the introduction and also in the aim. We have now tried to fix this issue also referring to the comments of the other reviewers.]

In addition, the authors did not provide a clear theoretical model that can justify their research. The hyopthesis is vagguely stated and need to be operationalised in detail.

[We agree that there were some issues with the research aim, and we have now worked to improve it.]

Then, the references are dated, and more recent studies should be included in the introduction (and discussion).

[We understand that it is important to include more recent papers, and we added more papers published in the last 10 years, but we still think that it is a good practice to refer to older papers if they are still very important pieces of work, so we kept several of the papers published more than 10 years ago.]

As for the study design, the justification for selecting 150 childrens in unclear. As the authors used a path analysis, I wonder if they performed a power analysis to determine the minimum sample size. As path analysis require a consistent number of cases, maybe the study could be underpowered.

[150 is a good sample size to run the statistical tests, including the path analysis. We actually checked the model fit parameters for the path analysis before choosing the best module. We thank the reviewer for spotting this missing part. We have now added the model fit.]

The results section is drated, figures lack clear explaination.

[We have now changed figure captions so that the content is clearer.]

Overall, I believe that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form.

[We hope that the reviewer is satisfied with the edits and we are keen to receive further suggestions, if any.]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, which addresses the important issue of how active Learning Affect Children’s Perception and Awareness on the Importance of Nature and Understanding Environment.

-There are some significant weaknesses in the structure and conceptualization of the paper that authors should seriously considerate and make the necessary changes by the authors.

-The research purpose is clear but there aren't research questions. The gap of literature isn't specifying. 

-The introduction and literature review need some considerable restructuring to better frame the manuscript, and to more thoroughly justify the research aim.  I found the literature review to be confusing in its structure. The meaning of some sentences, particularly ones with multiple clauses, was unclear.

- As concern as the results, it is difficult for me to distinguish how a butterfly incubation practical could give students a deeper understanding of the impact of temperature on phenology.

As far as the discussion,  the part of the practical would lead to students having a deeper understanding of the implications of the relationship of temperature and the phenology of organisms should be supported more clearly.

-I have not found what themes or principles informed the development of the experimental process and innervation

- There isn't cohesive connection between the conclusions and discussion.

- The bibliography isn't contemporary. For that reason, the research should definitely based on more recent literature and replaced by temporary sources that have published the last 5-10 years.

I encourage the authors to address these issues so as to maximize the opportunity for successful publication in the future. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper, which addresses the important issue of how active Learning Affect Children’s Perception and Awareness on the Importance of Nature and Understanding Environment.

-There are some significant weaknesses in the structure and conceptualization of the paper that authors should seriously considerate and make the necessary changes by the authors.

[We thank the reviewer for the kind comments and for the useful suggestions.]

-The research purpose is clear but there aren't research questions. The gap of literature isn't specifying.

[We agree the link with the rest of the intro was not so clear from the aim. The aim is now restructured.]

-The introduction and literature review need some considerable restructuring to better frame the manuscript, and to more thoroughly justify the research aim.  I found the literature review to be confusing in its structure. The meaning of some sentences, particularly ones with multiple clauses, was unclear.

[We have now improved the introduction, also changing sentences that were too long and difficult to read.]

- As concern as the results, it is difficult for me to distinguish how a butterfly incubation practical could give students a deeper understanding of the impact of temperature on phenology.

[We agree the wording was wrong in the aim. It is not about the practical, it is about the whole intervention with active learning elements. We have now changed the wording.]

As far as the discussion,  the part of the practical would lead to students having a deeper understanding of the implications of the relationship of temperature and the phenology of organisms should be supported more clearly.

[We agree, we have changed the wording and included more context linked with biophilia and connectedness with nature.]

-I have not found what themes or principles informed the development of the experimental process and innervation

[We have described the experiment in details and the potential for conservation education in the paper Granato, C.; Campera M.; Bulbert M. Sensitivity of Vanessa cardui to temperature variations: a cost-effective experiment for environmental education. Insects 2024, 15, 221.]

- There isn't cohesive connection between the conclusions and discussion.

[We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue, we have now edited the conclusion.]

- The bibliography isn't contemporary. For that reason, the research should definitely based on more recent literature and replaced by temporary sources that have published the last 5-10 years.

[We agree that more papers published in the last 10 years should be added, and we added them, but we also think that it is important to refer to older literature if relevant to the topic.]

I encourage the authors to address these issues so as to maximize the opportunity for successful publication in the future.

[We hope that the reviewer is satisfied with the edits and we are keen to receive further suggestions, if any.]

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thanks for your effort. I think the changes you have made meets the suggestions and address the issues that were present in the first version of the draft.

Kind regards.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the kind words and for the helpful suggestions given in the previous round

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-The gap of literature hasn't specyfied yet.

-The aim in now resructed but there aren't writen research questions.

-The discussion is still confused in its structure. Some sentences needs to be more restructed.

-Conclusions and discussion should ensure more cohensive connection.

-The reseach shoud based on more temporary sources. Only 33 bibliograpic sources out of 77 are from the last decade. it should be better.

 

Author Response

The gap of literature hasn't specyfied yet.

We have tried to make it more specific

 

-The aim in now resructed but there aren't writen research questions.

We have rephrased the aims. We think research questions does not necessarily need to be in the form of actual questions (that is quite unusual in papers), but they can be implicit questions.

 

-The discussion is still confused in its structure. Some sentences needs to be more restructed.

We have read the discussion again and tried to improve the readability of some sentences (but we do not know which specific sentences need to be improved so we went with our own perspective).

 

-Conclusions and discussion should ensure more cohensive connection.

We have now added more content in the conclusion to convey the message from the discussion

 

-The reseach shoud based on more temporary sources. Only 33 bibliograpic sources out of 77 are from the last decade. it should be better.

We have realised some of the refs added before were in the wrong format, plus we have now replaced a few more references. Now 42 out of 78 published in the last 10 years, so more than half.