Environmental Education for Sustainable Development in Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents an interesting area of research in the current global context. The issues addressed are relevant and were examined in some philosophical depth, but there are some essential aspects to be clarified:
· Methodology: this is the main aspect to improve. The reader does not have enough information to know clearly and systematically how the researchers reach their conclusions. The literature review is explicit, but there is a lack of which specific conceptual frameworks are used; what about the ethical approval; how systematically the data are collected and analysed.
· Referencing: various claims need evidence support.
· Structure: the discussion section remains thin and requires some further analytical depth.
· The discussed issues require some further focus; the literature delves in some very general discussions at times.

Author Response

Point 1. Methodology: this is the main aspect to improve. The reader does not have enough information to know clearly and systematically how the researchers reach their conclusions. The literature review is explicit, but there is a lack of which specific conceptual frameworks are used; what about the ethical approval; how systematically the data are collected and analyzed.

Response 1:

This paragraph has been significantly revised in connection with the comment of the reviewer. Three stages of research are prescribed. The tasks that were solved at each stage are shown. It is indicated that a search on the Internet and analysis of documents was carried out in the period from January to June 2020. Thus information on the representation of environmental education issues in Russia is relevant.

Point 2. Referencing: various claims need evidence support.

Response 2:

Thanks for this comment. Lines 133-139 were removed because the authors of the article tried to show the severity of the problem. However, they missed a crucial point - the current situation is volatile and possibly. The use of data, the period of which is several years, is not absolute data on which one should rely when carrying out research. In the paragraphs that discuss standards, references are general at the beginning of the discussion.

Point 3. Structure: the discussion section remains thin and requires some further analytical depth.

Response 3: This remark led to a revision of the structure of the work and additional discussion, what are the results and discussion and how best to construct the structures of this part so that the reader is comfortable with the text. The following components have appeared: description of the content of the sections at the end of the introduction, designation of the research results for their subsequent discussion in the corresponding section Results and Discussion.

Point 4. The discussed issues require some further focus; the literature delves in some very general discussions at times.

Response 4:

This study covers key issues of both philosophical and methodological content since for the Russian educational space these issues are discussed and create a context for the representation of education for sustainable development in the Russian education system.

Reviewer 2 Report

  The paper deals with an interesting topic, the issue of environmental education in the Russian Federation rarely appears in professional texts written in English. Unfortunately, the text is very inconsistent, lacks a clear line and is very difficult for readers to navigate.   The authors use a number of terms without clearly explaining the relationship between them and their exact meaning (environmental education, environmental education for sustainable development, education for sustainable development, environmental development, environmental outlook, environmental literacy, ecological education, ecological culture, environmental values for sustainable development...).   The introduction is very long and inconsistent, the theoretical description then continues in the methodology and results (chapter 3.1).   Matherials and methods lack and accurate description of the analysis procedure, supported by references to adequate methodological literature.   The Results chapter then consists only of a detailed description, not an analysis at all.    The Discussion chapter should be the most important chapter of the paper, with linking the results with current paradigms of EE and ESD. Unfortunately, this chapter is extremely short, without real "discussion".   I am afraid that some parts of the text lack adequate references to sources (eg lines 133-139).   I encourage the authors to develop their thoughts to several separate articles (eg history of the EE in the Russian Federation, analysis of the educational documents with comparison to other countries...).  

Author Response

Point 1: The text is very inconsistent, lacks a clear line and is very difficult for readers to navigate.   The authors use a number of terms without clearly explaining the relationship between them and their exact meaning (environmental education, environmental education for sustainable development, education for sustainable development, environmental development, environmental outlook, environmental literacy, ecological education, ecological culture, environmental values for sustainable development...).  The introduction is very long and inconsistent, the theoretical description then continues in the methodology and results (chapter 3.1).    

Response 1: This remark led to a revision of the structure of the work and additional discussion, what are the results and discussion and how best to construct the structures of this part so that the reader is comfortable with the text. The following components have appeared: description of the content of the sections at the end of the introduction, designation of the research results for their subsequent discussion in the corresponding section Results and Discussion.

Point 2: Matherials and methods lack and accurate description of the analysis procedure, supported by references to adequate methodological literature. 

Response 2: This paragraph has been significantly revised in connection with the comment of the reviewer. Three stages of research are prescribed. The tasks that were solved at each stage are shown. It is indicated that a search on the Internet and analysis of documents was carried out in the period from January to June 2020. Thus information on the representation of environmental education issues in Russia is relevant.

Point 3:  The Results chapter then consists only of a detailed description, not an analysis at all.

The Discussion chapter should be the most important chapter of the paper, with linking the results with current paradigms of EE and ESD. Unfortunately, this chapter is extremely short, without real "discussion".  

Response 4: The structure of the work has undergone some changes. They are indicated in the answer to point 1.

Point 4: I am afraid that some parts of the text lack adequate references to sources (eg lines 133-139). 

Response 4: Thanks for this comment. Lines 133-139 were removed because the authors of the article tried to show the severity of the problem. However, they missed a crucial point - the current situation is volatile and possibly. The use of data, the period of which is several years, is not absolute data on which one should rely when carrying out research. In the paragraphs that discuss standards, references are general at the beginning of the discussion.

Point 5:  I encourage the authors to develop their thoughts to several separate articles (eg history of the EE in the Russian Federation, analysis of the educational documents with comparison to other countries...). 

Response 5: This remark is related to further research by the team of authors. These questions are of great interest to us and contribute to the fact that in teaching practice we are guided by the principles of sustainable development and the results of the practice of its development in other countries. In this study, the team of authors set a specific goal for themselves - to present environmental education in the Russian educational standards and show their compliance with the concept of sustainable development. Thank you for this comment, as we will move in this direction in our further research.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is a good  overview of social suitability, and the result points out that there is not much about migrant children, but since that is the highlight in the title one expected it to be something about more specific of what articles says about migrant children. They become invisible in the wholeness of the article.

I also expected more of the authors idea about holistic. It maybe is impossible to make research based on wholeness since the privilege of research is that one need to focus on something, while practice have to deal with everything.

How the review is done is clear in 4 steps. At p 4 it says that journals in Nordic language were limited, but if I read correct there were 9 journals, which may not be limited?

It would help the reader if the results were organized related to the research questions

Author Response

Unfortunately, acquaintance with the comments in reply to the distinguished reviewer led me to some confusion, since the topic of the article I presented is Environmental Education in the Russian Federation.

However, I consider it necessary to indicate the changes that were made in the article:
Methodology.
This paragraph has been significantly revised in connection with the comment of the reviewer. Three stages of research are prescribed. The tasks that were solved at each stage are shown. It is indicated that a search on the Internet and analysis of documents was carried out in the period from January to June 2020. Thus information on the representation of environmental education issues in Russia is relevant.
Lines 133-139 were removed because the authors of the article tried to show the severity of the problem. However, they missed a crucial point - the current situation is volatile and possibly. The use of data, the period of which is several years, is not absolute data on which one should rely when carrying out research. In the paragraphs that discuss standards, references are general at the beginning of the discussion.
Structure of text.
This remark led to a revision of the structure of the work and additional discussion, what are the results and discussion and how best to construct the structures of this part so that the reader is comfortable with the text.
The following components have appeared: description of the content of the sections at the end of the introduction, designation of the research results for their subsequent discussion in the corresponding section Results and Discussion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the consideration of the feedback and changes made. The article has some interesting insights, but more work is needed on the following:

1. The structure:

• • parts of the results relate more to the literature review part or the methodology section.
  • The sequence of the argument throughout the paper does not always show a logic flow to help the reader follow.

2. The methodology section: It would be helpful if this section shows the following:

• A brief discussion of epistemology and ontology, as relevant, that was included in the results section instead. 
• The research design is still not clear: A brief, clear audit trail of what has been done, how it relates to the paper's question and how the data were analysed.

3. The language: The whole article requires language editing in terms of grammar, flow and clarity. Also, the language requires revision in terms of gender neutrality.  At times the argument is lost due to the muddled sentences. 

4. The results: this section is not sufficiently clear. What are the key findings of this paper? The content of the section does not clearly show the results; it is rather a mix of a theoretical framework discussion and parts of the literature review. 

5. The discussion sounds more like a brief summary. The discussion needs to pick up the paper's research question to move the analysis forward. It has to move the paper's analysis forward and establish how the findings add up to the field. Also, it has to link the specific paper's findings to the broader scholarly discussion in the field. This is missing, and the main argument remains not sufficiently supported.

Please see the attached file for a few examples. Thank you for the hard work; my best wishes.

Author Response

1. The structure:

• • parts of the results relate more to the literature review part or the methodology section.
  • The sequence of the argument throughout the paper does not always show a logic flow to help the reader follow.

The "results" item has been changed. The paragraph "methodological and philosophical foundations of sustainable development" has been removed, and the material has been made more concise, placed in the sections-introduction, methodology and discussion.

2. The methodology section: It would be helpful if this section shows the following:

• A brief discussion of epistemology and ontology, as relevant, that was included in the results section instead. 
• The research design is still not clear: A brief, clear audit trail of what has been done, how it relates to the paper's question and how the data were analysed.

The section "methods" shows which methods were used and which principles are leading to this study. At the end of the introduction, a brief description of the content of the sections is given.

3. The language: The whole article requires language editing in terms of grammar, flow and clarity. Also, the language requires revision in terms of gender neutrality.  At times the argument is lost due to the muddled sentences. 

The wording has been revised in terms of gender neutrality and clarity.

We have removed and replaced pronouns.

4. The results: this section is not sufficiently clear. What are the key findings of this paper? The content of the section does not clearly show the results; it is rather a mix of a theoretical framework discussion and parts of the literature review. 

The "results" item has been revised and rewritten. We proceeded from the set goal and its implementation.

5. The discussion sounds more like a brief summary. The discussion needs to pick up the paper's research question to move the analysis forward. It has to move the paper's analysis forward and establish how the findings add up to the field. Also, it has to link the specific paper's findings to the broader scholarly discussion in the field. This is missing, and the main argument remains not sufficiently supported.

Now the discussion is a continuation of results.

Thank you for the attached file! It was very useful for the further development of the text. We are grateful to you for your attention and very fruitful criticism.it was very useful for further development of the text. We are grateful to you for your attention and very fruitful criticism.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors clarified the methodology of the work. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of a broader discussion that would place the presented results in an international context.
It is interesting to get acquainted with how EE is implemented in the Russian Federation. I recommend summarizing this information in the discussion and placing it in an international context. How does the concept of EE in Russia differ from other countries and which directions of EE are close to it?

Author Response

The authors clarified the methodology of the work. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of a broader discussion that would place the presented results in an international context.
It is interesting to get acquainted with how EE is implemented in the Russian Federation. I recommend summarizing this information in the discussion and placing it in an international context. How does the concept of EE in Russia differ from other countries and which directions of EE are close to it?

The section "results" highlights the inclusion of international principles of environmental education in Russia. In this paper, we have shown what attempts are being made in Russia to organize the process of environmental education. In our opinion, Russian environmental education in regulatory matters (law and educational standards) tries to meet the international level. Of course, there is a General problem of low environmental culture in Russia. And in the introduction, we noted this issue. We also pointed out problematic issues in the discussion section when analyzing education standards.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I am sorry, but the paper still lacks international context and clear connection with the field. I do not think that its further rewriting would eliminate this shortcoming.