Integrating Perspectives from Education for Sustainable Development to Foster Plant Awareness among Trainee Science Teachers: A Mixed Methods Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors:
I share the concern for botanical education.
I hope my reflections/comments/suggestions will help you improve your manuscript.
I start by questioning the title. You wrote: "Integrating Sustainability (...)" seems to me a lack of rigor ...however in lines 192-193 you wrote "integrating ESD perspectives into botanical education". What "ESD perspectives" have followed in botany education?
What educational strategy has been developed or applied in botany education?
Regarding the framework of "Prospective Science Teacher" :
They (Prospective Science Teacher) will be teachers of what grade level?
"Prospective Science Teacher" had "Integrating Sustainability in Botanical Education" in curriculum plan?
In what scope did you make the intervention? You wrote: "third-year prospective science teachers" and "completed basic biology courses". I couldn't figure out who the participants in the study were.
(iii) Section 2.2 needs theoretical grounding (references) and strength of argument.
Table 2 needs to be revised.
Analysis of "aspect components of plant awareness" (lines 160-188) and table 2 there is a lack of scientific soundness. Ex: "Plants are important because they help to reduce climate change" is "acquire a solid foundation of plant-related knowledge ". I ask you: is this correct??????????????????
Ex:Attitude: "Prospective science teachers should be encouraged to be responsible for plant conservation and sustainability." is (ex) "Being around plants makes me feel happy" ????
iv) Section 3
Which teaching method(s) have been chosen and why? Ex: "Lecture" promotes "active learning"?
Attention to table 1, lines 209-211 and "The activities were designed to engage participants in active learning, including narrative-based activities and fieldwork."
You wrote: "Each session was planned with a specific learning objective in mind, such as plant biology, ecology, or sustainability. "What is the meaning of "in mind"??? and "such as plant biology, ecology, or sustainability"???
What were the key learning outcomes targeted? What is concept of "plant awareness"? What is plant? You claim to have followed the concept of "Plant, People, Planet." and only consider the "plant Invasive Alien Species". Why? Is it a local environmental issue?
Attention:
"A sustainability-oriented botanical module was developed and implemented with a sample of ninety-one prospective science teachers enrolled in a science teacher training program in East Java, Indonesia." is a consideration/assertion that has no scientific soundness.
What was the theoretical framework (science didactics vs ESD perspectives) that you followed?
Section 3.2 "Intervention Lesson" or "Intervention session"?
What is the relationship between "lecture theme" and "activity"?
Figures 2 and 3 should not be in this section. Figure 3 "Fieldwork to identify invasive alien species" I don't understand why you consider this "plant awareness". This is another example, of the flaws in the manuscript.
Figure 4 is imperceptible.
This statement is not clear: "The study highlights the importance of integrating sustainability concepts into teacher education programs and provides "valuable insights for educators seeking to promote biodiversity education in their classrooms.".
I ask: were these students trainees? Did they promote botanical education (about what?) in the classroom context? Is botanical education synonymous with biodiversity education?
- I draw your special attention to section "2. Theoretical Framework".
There is no theoretical framework for the research questions of your study. This gap is reflected in section 5.
Rew
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to express my gratitude for your previous comment and feedback. Your insights were extremely helpful.
I am writing to kindly request that you take a moment to review my attached responses. Your expertise in the field would be invaluable to me, and I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
Thank you again for your time and efforts.
Best regards,
Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for opportunity to review manuscript entitled ‘‘Integrating Sustainability in Botanical Education for Prospective Science Teacher: A Mixed Method Study’’ for Sustainability journal. Authors of the manuscript investigated the effects of a sustainability based Botanical Education among prospective teacher on their attention 15 and attitude towards plants, relative interest in plants, and self-efficacy in teaching plant-related topics using a mixed-method design. The strengths of the manuscript were that this research investigated the effect of intervention among Indonesian cultural context. As an experienced editor, reviewer, multivariate analyst, I think that the article is generally well-written and deserves to be published in this journal. However, some section needs improvements. Because my main philosophy of reviewing a manuscript as reviewer and sometimes an article editor to improve the manuscript and not punishing the authors, I provided very specific and detailed peer review of the manuscript to increase its quality and citation potential. I hope authors of the manuscript may benefit from my review. Necessary and minor revisions reported section by section with the page and line number and when possible with suggestions.
Necessary Revisions
Title
1. Page 1, Line 2-3: The title of the article did not accurately reflect the study. Authors must revise the title to reflect dependent variables.
Abstract
2. Page 1, Line 23-24: No need following sentence and must remove from manuscript ‘‘and explore the potential influence of different instructional approaches on other learning outcomes.’’
3. Page 1, Line 25-26: Authors must add keywords to country to Keywords.
Introduction
4. Page 2, Line 67-69: The citation/citations needed for following sentence ‘‘This multidisciplinary approach empowers learners to become responsible guardians of the environment by fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities.’’
5. Page 2, Line 71-72: Please revise following sentence or use citation in this form. ‘‘This foundation allows them to inspire students to think critically and creatively about the challenges facing plant conservation and sustainable agriculture.’’ One revision may be that ‘ ‘This foundation may allow them to inspire students to think critically and creatively about the challenges facing plant conservation and sustainable agriculture.’’
6. Page 2-3, Line 98-100: Please combine following two sentences ‘‘Quantitative data were collected through self-reported surveys, assessing participants' plant awareness before and after the intervention. Additionally, qualitative data were gathered through reflective journals and focus group interviews to gain insights into the participants' experiences, perceptions, and learning processes.’’ One revision may that ‘ ‘Quantitative data were collected through self-reported surveys, reflective journals and focus group interviews to gain insights into the participants' experiences, perceptions, and learning processes.’’
7. Page 2-3, Line 94-111: Following information must move to end of Introduction (On Page 4 after Line 188) after the information self-efficacy information after above revision. ‘‘This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of integrating ESD principles into botanical education to enhance plant awareness among prospective science teachers (PSTs). By employing a mixed-methods approach, this research sought to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of the sustainability-oriented botanical module on participants. Quantitative data were collected through self-reported surveys, assessing participants' plant awareness before and after the intervention. Additionally, qualitative data were gathered through reflective journals and focus group interviews to gain insights into the participants' experiences, perceptions, and learning processes. This study sought to contribute to the growing body of research on plant awareness and informed the development of effective strategies for promoting sustainability-oriented botanical education in prospective science teacher training programs in line with the ESD framework and the SDGs. Specifically, the research questions (RQ) that guided this study were as follows:
RQ 1: How does integrating ESD principles into botanical education impact the plant awareness of prospective science teachers?
RQ 2: What are the key features of the sustainability-oriented botanical module that contribute to developing plant awareness among participants?
RQ 3: How do participants' experiences, perceptions, and learning processes change due to engaging with the sustainability-oriented botanical module?’’
8. Page 3, Line 118: Figure 1 must not be bold.
9. Page 3, Line 164: The citation/citations needed for following sentence ‘ ‘PSTs' heightened attention to plants is the first step in overcoming 164 plant blindness and fostering an appreciation for plant life.’’
10. Page 3, Line 180-181: The citation/citations needed for following sentence ‘‘In the context of prospective science teacher training, self-efficacy in teaching about plants is a critical component of plant awareness.’’
11. Introduction general: One of the most important weaknesses of Introduction is that researcher did not simply give information importance of studying variables of interest in Polish cultural context. Simply, author need to answer Why it is important to examine variables of interest Indonesian cultural context? In Introduction section at least with a one paragraph.
Method
12. Method General: Authors must construct separately Study design and Participants section and must move all related information to related section.
13. Method General: After implementing above correction, authors must add more information about participant profile. For example, authors must add minimum and maximum age, mean age and standard deviation of age as well as grade level distribution. Authors also must add used sampling technique to this section.
14. Page 6, Line 241: Authors must correct Alpha as alpha.
15. Page 6, Line 241: In the following and along the manuscript dependent t-test statistical symbols must be italic. Small t must be italic.
16. Page 6, Line 241: Authors must move ‘‘Levene test with’’ from this line. This information is completely wrong. This test is a preliminary test and measure effect of intervention.
17. Page 6, Line 247: Figure 2 must not be bold.
18. Page 6, Line 247: Table 2 must not be bold.
19. Page 6, Line 256: Authors must correct reporting of SD not like this (SD±2.05). but like this (SD = 2.05).
20. Method, General: Authors must move Cronbach alpha information in the Table 4 to Table 2.
21. Method, General: The main problem of Method section is that authors did not conduct a construct validity study for Plant Awareness Questionnaire. This is an important problem. Although one possible reason may be limited sample size, authors must honest to acknowledge this limitation in Limitation section.
Results
22. Page 7, 282-283: Following information must remove from manuscript. This information already given in Method section. ‘‘A paired-sample t-test was used to analyze the data. The sample consisted of 91 PSTs, and the significance level was set at p < .05.’’ Significance level may move to Data analysis section instead of deleting.
23. Page 7, 283-284: Following information must move to data analysis section ‘ ‘Mean scores of the pre-test and posttest were compared, and Cohen's d was calculated as the effect size.’’
24. Result, General: All t values representing dependent samples t test must be italic. Authors must also add in each case Cohen d values whether significant or not. Not reporting effect size for nonsignificant findings is completely wrong. I provide an example reporting authors must correct all reporting like this, (t(90) = -2.15, p < .05, Cohens’s d = .27).
25. Result, General: Reporting to results of relative interest in plants t-test results is not the same with table. Which is correct? Authors must carefully check and correct this.
26. Result, General: Authors must report all findings with two decimals in the tables and in the manuscript.
26. Result, General: All bolds like this ‘ ‘engagement with the lesson’’ must not be bold.
Discussion
27. Discussion, General: Limitations of study must significantly improve.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to express my gratitude for your previous comment and feedback. Your insights were extremely helpful.
I am writing to kindly request that you take a moment to review my attached responses. Your expertise in the field would be invaluable to me, and I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
Thank you again for your time and efforts.
Best regards,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a fine contribution to the literature that cites appropriate supporting work and positions theory nicely throughout the piece. Please check for English grammar and mechanics throughout the piece, but otherwise, this should be a fine article ready for publication, in my professional view.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking the time to review my work and providing me with your valuable feedback. I am grateful for your positive comments about my contribution to the literature and my use of supporting work and theory throughout the piece. Your suggestions to check for English grammar and mechanics are duly noted, and I will make sure to carefully review and revise the article to ensure its readiness for publication. I truly appreciate your professional view and your constructive feedback, which will undoubtedly help me improve the quality of my work. Thank you once again for your time and input, it is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Author
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I greatly appreciated the improvements that were made to the manuscript.
I consider that the manuscript can be published.
Rw
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for
providing us with your positive feedback. We are glad to hear that the improvements we made were satisfactory and that you consider our manuscript suitable for publication. Your support means a lot to us, and we will continue to strive for excellence in our research. Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback.
Best regards,
Author
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for opportunity review revised manuscript entitled ‘‘Integrating Perspectives from Education for Sustainable Development to Foster Plant Awareness among Science Teacher Trainee Students: A Mixed Method Study ’’ for Sustainability Journal. I would like the thanks to authors. They make a good job for improving quality of their manuscript. Authors revised the manuscript as I requested with a good will. In this form, Introduction reflects well the previous studies and study aim, Method section and Result section is correct, and Discussion section adequately synthesis to previous study findings and current study results. Overall, I have no further comment regarding to manuscript. I congratulate to authors and wish them success on their future endeavors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are glad to hear that you found the revisions we made to be satisfactory and that you have no further comments regarding the manuscript. Your feedback has been valuable in improving the quality of our work, and we appreciate your constructive criticism.
We sincerely appreciate your support and encouragement, and we hope that our study will make a positive contribution to the field. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Author
