Environmental Education in the Preparation of Students of Tourism and Finance and Management in the Czech Republic
, Kateřina Berková 2, Katarína Krpálková Krelová 3, Andrea Kubišová 4, Dagmar Frendlovská 2 and Stanislav Szabo 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is timely and interesting. Further, the paper was well written overall. However, I have two major concerns.
First, I hope the authors theoretically and logically justify the hypotheses. In the present form, the introduction alone is too long.
Second, please present the limitations of the study and suggestions for future study.
Author Response
Review Report Form
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of the paper is timely and interesting. Further, the paper was well written overall. However, I have two major concerns.
First, I hope the authors theoretically and logically justify the hypotheses. In the present form, the introduction alone is too long.
The Introduction was conducted at a relatively larger extent on the grounds that it contains a literary research in which it was necessary to clearly process a large number of relevant sources related to the issue in question. The aim is for the current state of dealing with the issues to be thoroughly described in the discourse of various authors and to comprehensively clarify all the areas necessary for the exact grasp of the research goal and the formulation of research hypotheses.
Second, please present the limitations of the study and suggestions for future study.
This requirement was added in sections - 4. Discussion and 5. Conclusions
Submission Date
03 July 2020
Date of this review
21 Jul 2020 11:27:56
Reviewer 2 Report
- Introduction
- Some of the terms used throughout the paper (i.e. didactic analysis, educational analysis) are not clear in the usage within the sentences. Do they mean general literature reviews?
- Line 126: “ The authors of this article” is confusing. Does this mean the writers or Pessotto, et al.? Was confusing because of “they” on line 130.
- pp. 2-4: The authors discuss extensively on the sustainability competencies and dimensions in their literature review. The reviewer is curious about its inclusion since the authors are not investigating those concepts in the paper. What is the purpose of including the concepts?
- There was no mention of differences in gender or study forms in the literature review, which is related to H3 and H5.
- What are the significance or contributions of this study? Not stated in the introduction.
- Lines 286 – 289: Not clear what the authors are trying to test. How do you decide whether a course (a subject) contains an environmental component? These are not testable but can be verified using different analyses.
- Lines 290-291 (H3): How can a course’s extent of the environmental component integration vary by the gender of the students? Course contents are delivered by instructors. Is this the perception of the students by gender? Not clear whether it is or not. If it is their perception, please include questionnaire items used for it in the methods section.
- p. 6: Why don’t the authors have a hypothesis on time series analysis? (The extent of the environmental component integration by year).
- Relevance of the literature used: There is a question about the review of current research on the topic or citation of key publications. Significant literature on environmental education is missing. Also, the reviewer was not able to draw strong connection between the literature review and the purpose of the study (hypotheses).
- Materials and methods
- Lines 322-325: wouldn’t this skew the result? Why not only include data from years 2014-2018? What worries me is ‘…fails to capture their complete answers…’.
- Lines 371-373: Did not discuss the qualitative method.
- Line 407: The questionnaire was not tested for validity nor reliability at the time of collection, thus at the time of research.
- Results
- pp. 11-13 (tables 4 & 5): please provide bases for deciding whether a course has environmental components. What measures were used to define ‘not at all’, ‘partially’ and ‘totally’ in the occurrences of environmental components? Has there been specific word count in the course description, etc.?
- Discussion
- Results of hypotheses 3 and 5 are not discussed.
- p. 17 (Lines 617-653): This part is not the discussion of findings from the research. New knowledge is introduced that was not discussed in the prior sections. This page reads more like a conclusion.
- Conclusion
- Lines 657-659: “…comprehensive, consistent” … “…functionally interconnecting social, economic and environmental aspects.” These are the authors’ claims based on the literature review, but were not tested, investigated, or researched in this study.
Author Response
Review Report Form 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Introduction
- Some of the terms used throughout the paper (i.e. didactic analysis, educational analysis) are not clear in the usage within the sentences. Do they mean general literature reviews?
In this case, it represents a borderline area, into which the professional topics in the context of the theory of teaching are reflected. The authors understand the didactic analysis as a comprehensive analysis of the curriculum (the content aspects of teaching) for the purpose of setting the competence profiles in relation to the objectives of education as well as the recommended organisation and methodology of conducting the teaching.
- Line 126: “ The authors of this article” is confusing. Does this mean the writers or Pessotto, et al.? Was confusing because of “they” on line 130.
These are the authors of the presented contribution, not Pessotto, et al. The inaccuracy has been corrected by putting the text of the authors Pessotto, et al. at the beginning of a new paragraph and the confusing "they" has been removed. The wording has been edited to make the text unambiguous.
- pp. 2-4: The authors discuss extensively on the sustainability competencies and dimensions in their literature review. The reviewer is curious about its inclusion since the authors are not investigating those concepts in the paper. What is the purpose of including the concepts?
Modern didactic approaches include sustainability as one of the key parameters for the wording of the competence profiles and building competences in the environmental, social and economic dimensions. The authors pay close attention to it because it is discussed very extensively indeed and interpreted in various ways by relevant authors in different countries, and similarly its projection in real environmental and educational policy and practice is also very different. The environmental dimension, which the authors also focus on, is understood as a cross-cutting dimension and they reflect it in the context of contemporary real practice in the Czech Republic and project it into the research model through research hypotheses.
- There was no mention of differences in gender or study forms in the literature review, which is related to H3 and H5.
Three relevant articles have been added in the Introduction section.
- What are the significance or contributions of this study? Not stated in the introduction.
The response to the comment has been added to the section dealing with the study's objectives. The importance of environmental education was further specified in greater detail in the Introduction section.
- Lines 286 – 289: Not clear what the authors are trying to test. How do you decide whether a course (a subject) contains an environmental component? These are not testable but can be verified using different analyses.
The analysis method was further specified in greater detail in section 2.3 Methods.
- Lines 290-291 (H3): How can a course’s extent of the environmental component integration vary by the gender of the students? Course contents are delivered by instructors. Is this the perception of the students by gender? Not clear whether it is or not. If it is their perception, please include questionnaire items used for it in the methods section.
The authors explained the influence of gender, the form of study and study programme on the selection of a job position with an environmental component in section 2.1 Participants and Procedure.
- p. 6: Why don’t the authors have a hypothesis on time series analysis? (The extent of the environmental component integration by year).
It is not necessary to verify this hypothesis separately, as when assessing the occurrence of an environmental component depending on the time, it was necessary to factor the basic sample according to the study programme. Time series are part of hypothesis 5.
- Relevance of the literature used: There is a question about the review of current research on the topic or citation of key publications. Significant literature on environmental education is missing. Also, the reviewer was not able to draw strong connection between the literature review and the purpose of the study (hypotheses).
The Introduction section was extended with three additional publications, which relate to environmental education and which support the purpose of the research study.
- Materials and methods
- Lines 322-325: wouldn’t this skew the result? Why not only include data from years 2014-2018? What worries me is ‘…fails to capture their complete answers…’
The inclusion of 2019 is explained in section 2.1 Participants and Procedure. The authors left the time series of 2014-2019 in the article.
- Lines 371-373: Did not discuss the qualitative method.
Qualitative methods have been explained in greater detail in terms of data evaluation.
- Line 407: The questionnaire was not tested for validity nor reliability at the time of collection, thus at the time of research.
This need was not necessary at the time of the research, as it concerns a systematic, long-term data collection based on the strategy of the school's top management. Any modifications of the questionnaire would interfere with data continuity.
- Results
- pp. 11-13 (tables 4 & 5): please provide bases for deciding whether a course has environmental components. What measures were used to define ‘not at all’, ‘partially’ and ‘totally’ in the occurrences of environmental components? Has there been specific word count in the course description, etc.?
The method is clarified and specified in greater detail in section 2.3 Methods.
- Discussion
- Results of hypotheses 3 and 5 are not discussed.
Hypothesis 3 – gender discussed.
- p. 17 (Lines 617-653): This part is not the discussion of findings from the research. New knowledge is introduced that was not discussed in the prior sections. This page reads more like a conclusion.
The authors are of the opinion that the discussion is relevant in relation to the aim of the study. The limits/limitations of the study have been added.
- Conclusion
- Lines 657-659: “…comprehensive, consistent” … “…functionally interconnecting social, economic and environmental aspects.” These are the authors’ claims based on the literature review, but were not tested, investigated, or researched in this study.
Adjusted in relation to the objective of the study.
Submission Date
03 July 2020
Date of this review
17 Jul 2020 15:05:00
Konec formuláře
© 1996-2020 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwis
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the revision.
- The introduction still contains info that are less related to some of the hypotheses, and some hypotheses needs better justification.
Author Response
Dear Colleagues,
the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their enriching feedback. They are grateful for the factual and formal comments on the content and structure that were very useful.
We have incorporated the comments of the reviewers, we are sending our answer and the revised article in the appendix.
Point 1: The introduction still contains info that are less related to some of the hypotheses, and some hypotheses needs better justification.
Response 1: In the section "Introduction" (p. 7 of the article) we clarified the definition of hypotheses in the context of the whole study and our research plan. The adjustment is indicated by tracking changes.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Pavel Krpálek and co-authors