Sustainable Development Goal for Education: Teachers’ Perspectives on Climate Change Education in Senior High Schools (SHS)
, Harry Barton Essel 1, Emmanuel Opuni-Frimpong 2,3 and Elizabeth Asantewaa Obeng 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for the submission. the manuscript has the quality to justify publication. However, a relevant issue needs to be addressed before publishing. In the abstract, it is claimed that data were collected by using a simple random sampling method. However, you don't mention that the schools participating in the study were chosen using convenience sampling. This combination of sampling methods deserves a discussion, at least in the study's limitations, because convenience sampling might impact the generalizations from the random sampling method. There are also some minor observations that you could make to improve the paper. I recommend including the purpose or aim of this article in the abstract and the first lines of the introduction. I also recommend adding current citations to the content: introduction and analysis. Unfortunately, there are just a few citations from 2020 and 2021. Finally, It is indispensable to proofread the document for spelling and grammar, preferably by an English native proofreading service.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for for authors' responses to reviewer's comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the authors. An interesting read, though I think the authors could revisit some of their data and consider its validity. The content analysis sections somewhat jar with teachers’ self-perceptions on how climate change is being implemented in their individual subjects. But perhaps that was the intention of the authors. The introduction section is also very short, and so significantly more depth into ongoing efforts globally to implement climat change education in high schools could be included.
I find the section describing if a subject syllabus had significant information on climate change somewhat confusing (lines 172-198). Is this just based on the teacher’s perception (i.e. do they think their own subject has enough embedded content related to climate change). Or did you actually look at the subject curricula?
This needs clarifying because if the former than there could be a myriad of reasons why the teacher might respond yes or no to that question. For instance, and English teacher might say yes there is significant information in their English curriculum, but only because the little amount that there is they think is more than enough!
How the tables are presented in the content analysis section (lines 221-255) come across as very cluttered. The difference between the 2nd column and the 4th column is not sufficiently explained. I understand that the 2nd column represents the actual/intended curriculum topics, i.e. what should or is taught. Is the 4th column therefore purely suggestions from the co-authors on what could be taught? If so, can the authors give more explanation as to why they have made these suggestions. Based on what? Compared to another curriculum? Or just their own knowledge? Perhaps provide some literature to justify these suggestions?
Table 10 – I am presuming the respondents chose these from a list of possible “most significant challenges”. Were there others? If so, list them. Or was it just these five?
Across the document, several sentences are repeated. For example, twice (lines 331-333 and lines 370-372) the reader is told that “findings are further supported by [31]'s research in Ethiopia, which indicated that climate change is an important part of the high school biology curriculum.” And THREE times (lines 343-343, 381-382, 472-473) we are told that “Science-based studies may not be very beneficial in teaching and 381 learning about climate change because it affects all aspects of life on Earth.”. I am sure there are more that I didn’t notice. The authors should do a thorough check over the document to find other duplicating sentences. Sections of the Discussion section read very similar and so could be shortened considerably.
I would have liked to have read more about the implementation of climate change education in Ghana. Right at the end the authors identify a relevant section from the Ghana National Climate Change Policy (reference 40) and how it emphasises the need to integrate climate change education into curricula. It would have been great to read the perception of the teacher – do they think this policy has been implemented? A revised version of this could explore evidence of how this policy is being implemented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
REVIEW of the manuscript titled:
sustainability-1738047
Sustainable Development Goal for Education: Teachers’ Perspectives on Climate Change Education in Senior High Schools (SHS)
Please find some of my observations.
The title is descriptive and reflects the subject on which the authors have focused.
The abstract is a concise summary of research conducted, results obtained, and conclusions reached.
The structure of the paper was organized into several sections. The introduction provides background information with a summary of existing literature.
The main body of the article refers to the climate change perceptions of teachers in two districts in the Bono region of Ghana. One of the goals was to get teachers to understand the concerns of climate change. The study also looked at the extent to which this information is addressed in the school curriculum but also whether the subject taught by the teacher influences their attitude in teaching.
The topic is not new (lines 199-206), a series of references in the literature indicate the major influence of teachers' specialization in the way they perceive climate change and can transmit this information to students ( (2021) Ghanaian preservice science teachers’ knowledge of ozone depletion and climate change, and sources of their knowledge, International Journal of Science Education, 43:10, 1554-1575, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2021.1922779; (2021) A comparison of California and Texas secondary science teachers’ perceptions of climate change, Environmental Education Research, 27:5, 669-686, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1838447; , , . (2022) Discourses of climate change education: The case of geography textbooks for secondary and higher secondary education in South Africa and Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 76:2, pages 94-109; , , . (2022) Let’s read green! A comparison between approaches in different disciplines to enhance preservice teachers’ environmental attitudes. Environmental Education Research 28:6, pages 886-906 etc).
The authors included discussions on their results in the study, but its purpose is not clear, in the context in which the subject is not new. The findings indicate that a significant proportion of teachers do not have adequate knowledge of the basics of climate change and, due to their specialization, will not be able to approach this topic in the future. The findings highlight the need for additional continuing education to improve teachers' knowledge of climate, but this means costs for their specialization (lines 255-274). At the same time, this is not possible without national policies to support these actions, the appropriate source of funding, and educational resources that, as the authors point out, are difficult to ensure.
What solutions does the author propose to support the inclusion of information on climate change in the curriculum given that the authors identify some difficulties in implementation? (line 501-506). What could be the suggested future areas for research? I also ask the authors to highlight the importance of their research in the context in which, as pointed out, it is not a new subject.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the authors for making revisions to this manuscript. Some of the additions, particularly in the introduction, do seem to take the emphasis of the article somewhat away from a purely education-focussed (SDG4). However they do give the article a bit more grounding in the climate change literature, so they seem fine.
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the collaboration of the authors and the review performed.
