Climate Change Education in Primary and Lower Secondary Education: Systematic Review Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- you present an interesting concept, the Bicycle Model, but you should develop and explain it a bit more than only enlisting a couple of aspects.

- the article selection process and data collection methodology is adequately presented.

- the title of the subchapter 3.1 needs to be translated in English

- Figure 3 presents a very interesting evolution of the interest for research in Climate Change Education over the years.

- the quantitative part of the analysis is adequately described.

- the results section is clearly written and the conclusions support the previous discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive evaluation of the text and comments on its improvement. We have dealt with them as follows:

1	you present an interesting concept, the Bicycle Model, but you should develop and explain it a bit more than only enlisting a couple of aspects	The bicycle mode designed for climate education was described in more detail.
2	the title of the subchapter 3.1 needs to be translated in English	Fixed.

Reviewer 2 Report

After reviewing the article, I make a few observations:

- The topic is interesting and current.

- Summary: Meets the requirements that are needed for this topic.

- Introduction: it is divided into sections, which is unusual and does not necessarily make the text more organized or easy to understand. There is a clear and justified problem of study, however intermediate objectives were not established.

- Materials and Methods: Although it is a review article, it presents this topic in detail, which greatly enriches the article. Detailed topic, with an illustrative outline of the selection of articles. PRISMA methodology and conventional content analysis are used.

- Results: The presentation of results is carried out in a clear and objective way. It is divided into topics which was very suitable. There is, in a way, a discussion of the research findings at the end of the presentation of the results.

- Discussion: it is succinct, uses little contextualization and also presents the limitations of the study.

- Conclusions: Objectively, it could point out the studies that could be originated from this article, outlining guidelines for future studies.

Yours sincerely,

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive evaluation of the text and comments on its improvement. We have dealt with them as follows:

1	Introduction: it is divided into sections, which is unusual and does not necessarily make the text more organized or easy to understand.	The subchapters have been removed.
2	There is a clear and justified problem of study, however intermediate objectives were not established	Research questions corresponding to the sub-objectives of the study were included at the end of the introductory segment.

3	Discussion: it is succinct, uses little contextualization and also presents the limitations of the study.	Discussion has been edited and expanded.
4	Conclusions: Objectively, it could point out the studies that could be originated from this article, outlining guidelines for future studies.	Conclusion has been extended.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

These are my comments and suggestion to your manuscript. Hope they are helpful to improve the paper

Abstract

·       L11, ISCED stand for…

·       In the abstract you need to put more the finding of your study, such us the current status of climate change education worldwide based on your finding.

 

Introduction

·       L68, in the subtitle it will be better if put a key word ‘research gap”, and in the content in L 117-120, elaborate more information about the importance of CCE in primary Scholl (ISCED 1 & 2) as the core Idea of your review.

Result

·       L199, change the sub-title to English

·       L207-209. What is the reason of filtering the year of publication in 2001-2020 period, and only include 2009 onward for final selection. Narrowing the year of publications can result in a bias result.  

·       L212 onwards, (16) to (16 studies)

·       In my opinion, the section 3.3.1. (Description status) would be better if it is supported by a graph or table to describe the structure of CCE practiced in schools, the significant predictors or significant factors to improve environmental (climatic change) knowledge, attitude, and behaviour on CC of young people.

·       L362, the result in Table 2 does not figure out the ineffective practice of CCE. You need to explain this issue more as the current /past status of teaching practices on CCE in ISCED. This is also to support the suggestion part in conclusion section.

·       L363, the program Friday for Future is too specific, that may be not many countries adopt this. It is better to explain this strategy as a day for CC actions, or with a common/general term.

Discussion

Need to explain more the results in table 2 and it need to be supported by relevant literatures.

Conclusion

·       The conclusion needs to explain more the result of the study

·       L472-473, you suggested the further study to evaluate the program CCE and identifying the better practices, whereas in your result, you did not discuss what is lack or missing in the current /past practices of CCE.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your detailed reading of the manuscript and the many valuable comments that helped to improve its quality. Individual comments and responses are listed below: 

C1	L11, ISCED stand for…	Explained.
C2	In the abstract you need to put more the finding of your study, such us the current status of climate change education worldwide based on your finding.	The abstract has been expanded.
C3	Introduction · L68, in the subtitle it will be better if put a key word ‘research gap”,	Subheadings have been removed at the request of another reviewer.
C4	L 117-120, elaborate more information about the importance of CCE in primary Scholl (ISCED 1 & 2) as the core Idea of your review.	A paragraph on the importance of CCE in primary school has been added.
C5	Result · L199, change the sub-title to English	Fixed.
C6	· L207-209. What is the reason of filtering the year of publication in 2001-2020 period, and only include 2009 onward for final selection. Narrowing the year of publications can result in a bias result.	All identified studies published between 2001-2009 were excluded due to selection criteria.
C7	L212 onwards, (16) to (16 studies)	Fixed.
C8	In my opinion, the section 3.3.1. (Description status) would be better if it is supported by a graph or table to describe the structure of CCE practiced in schools, the significant predictors or significant factors to improve environmental (climatic change) knowledge, attitude, and behaviour on CC of young people.	Table 3 "Positive relationships between predictors and dependent variables documented by the analysed studies" has been created.
C9	L362, the result in Table 2 does not figure out the ineffective practice of CCE. You need to explain this issue more as the current /past status of teaching practices on CCE in ISCED. This is also to support the suggestion part in conclusion section.	The text has been modified.
C10	· L363, the program Friday for Future is too specific, that may be not many countries adopt this. It is better to explain this strategy as a day for CC actions, or with a common/general term.	The text has been modified.
C11	Discussion Need to explain more the results in table 2 and it need to be supported by relevant literatures.	Discussion has been edited and expanded.
C12	Conclusion. · The conclusion needs to explain more the result of the study.	The Conclusion has been expanded, but still respecting the expected generality of the article's conclusion.
C13	L472-473, you suggested the further study to evaluate the program CCE and identifying the better practices, whereas in your result, you did not discuss what is lack or missing in the current /past practices of CCE.	The Conclusion has been modified so that it is not so straightforward and better describes the situation where evaluation research exists today, but we see it as desirable that their number grows at the expense of research only describing the situation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Editor and authors, 

Thank you for the review invitation. The manuscript “Climate Change Education in the Primary and Lower Secondary Education: Systematic Review Results” is a significant issue because climate change is happening. However, a few issues need to be addressed in the manuscript. My comments on the manuscript are as follows:

1. The results and conclusions in the abstract should be described more.
2. The introduction of CCE is lacking in the introduction, such as the purpose, function, teaching methods, benefits, and applications of CCE at various educational levels. The CCE should be interpreted comprehensively.  
3. The gaps in the study are unclear, and the gaps in the past studies on CCE should be specified. That led this study to review the related literature systematically.
4. When abbreviated terms appear for the first time in the article, the full names should be included—for example, ISCED, PRISMA2020, MS, KN, TS, RK, etc.
5. The application of CCE education is extensive, and why primary school is chosen needs to be explained.
6. Forty-three articles were selected at the end of the article. They should be listed.
7. Line 200-204, 43 articles from 20 different journals, seems not reasonable. Please check again.
8. It is suggested that the respondents should be included in the categories. The study population is the primary school, but the study has 18+ years old study respondents, which does not make sense.
9. The proposed research methodology in the results can be indicated by quantitative, qualitative, and mixed, and what kinds of methods were used to conduct the study.
10. What is the database for content analysis? Results? Keywords?
11. The conclusion section should summarize and discuss the results of categories rather than individual studies. The summary of the categories should present the current hot topics and future research topics.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your detailed reading of the manuscript and the many valuable comments that helped to improve its quality. Individual comments and responses are listed below: 

D1	The results and conclusions in the abstract should be described more.	The abstract has been expanded.
D2	The introduction of CCE is lacking in the introduction, such as the purpose, function, teaching methods, benefits, and applications of CCE at various educational levels. The CCE should be interpreted comprehensively.	Our goal was not to comprehensively cover CCE educational strategies at all grade levels; the introduction would have grown disproportionately. However, we agree that it needs a more general introduction. We have added this.
D3	The gaps in the study are unclear, and the gaps in the past studies on CCE should be specified. That led this study to review the related literature systematically.	The end of the introduction has been expanded.
D4	When abbreviated terms appear for the first time in the article, the full names should be included—for example, ISCED, PRISMA2020, MS, KN, TS, RK, etc.	Fixed.
D5	The application of CCE education is extensive, and why primary school is chosen needs to be explained.	A paragraph on the importance of CCE in primary school has been added.
D6	Forty-three articles were selected at the end of the article. They should be listed.	The table with selected articles was added (Appendix 1)
D7	Line 200-204, 43 articles from 20 different journals, seems not reasonable. Please check again.	Seven journals published more than one article (see Figure 2), while the remaining thirteen journals published one article each.
D8	It is suggested that the respondents should be included in the categories. The study population is the primary school, but the study has 18+ years old study respondents, which does not make sense.	This is in line with the established criteria. Some studies include an overlap between participants at higher ages, which is acknowledged in the text.
D9	The proposed research methodology in the results can be indicated by quantitative, qualitative, and mixed, and what kinds of methods were used to conduct the study. What is the database for content analysis? Results? Keywords?	The content analysis was carried out by studying the full-text of the articles. The database then consisted of the generated codes corresponding to the research approaches and strategies used in the articles.
D10	The conclusion section should summarize and discuss the results of categories rather than individual studies. The summary of the categories should present the current hot topics and future research topics.	Conclusilon has been modified.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the paper properly. 

Minor suggestion:

L152-158. Study purposes should come after research question.  

L248-248. Confirm in the text that the studies 2001-2009 do not meet inclusion criteria.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your additional comments. We have added a broadly defined aim of the study after the research questions and have reworded the section of the text devoted to studies from 2001-2009.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear editor and author, 

Thank you for your efforts. The manuscript has qualified for publishing in the journal.  Thank you for your invitation. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your recommendation for publication.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript properly