New Insights for Teaching the One Health Approach: Transformative Environmental Education for Sustainability

COMMENTS

RESPONSES

Methodologies in the form of an educational trajectory diagram - I think this is in conclusión

Figure 5 has not been moved to the conclusion section because its current placement is essential for understanding the text (specifically, the evolution of academic and professional competencies throughout schooling and specialization, particularly for teachers). However, in response to Reviewer 1's request, we have referenced it in the conclusion section where we believe it is useful to recall the information presented in the image. Furthermore, a new figure (Figure 6) has been added to the revised conclusions section, summarizing the potential implications of the work.

What limitations of your approach can be identified in the conditions of a technogenic society?

We appreciate this thought-provoking question and would like to take a moment to reflect on it. Brief reflections on this topic have already been included in the article's “limitations” and “conclusions” sections.

In the context of a technogenic society, deeply shaped by technology, which influences not only the practical aspects of daily life but also shapes culture, the economy, social relationships, and even our perception of the world, the article presents certain limitations. One notable limitation is the lack of depth regarding how the use of ICTs by society affects EE, particularly in understanding environmental issues. Likewise, despite focusing on the relevance of integrating the One Health approach and the EE, the article does not delve into the fact that the impact of technological advances on health and the environment can be both positive (as a solution) and negative (feeding back into the problem or generating new ones).

The information society, driven by technology and social media, has reinforced a dominant view of EE. In this context, the prevailing approach to EE (both in classrooms and informal spaces like the internet, where scientific knowledge is often taught from an ecological perspective) can sometimes create the perception that scientists are the sole solvers of environmental and health issues, potentially sidelining public participation. This can lead to disengagement and a diminished sense of individual responsibility, thereby limiting the effectiveness of education as a driver for changing behaviour.

Moreover, social media has contributed to a more polarized society and shortened attention spans, making it harder to engage in deep understanding and critical reflection on these issues. The rapid spread of misinformation exacerbates this challenge. In addition, technology has encouraged a hedonistic, consumption-driven mindset, leading to overexploitation of natural resources.

Thus, it is essential to promote critical thinking in educational settings, helping individuals understand the consequences of their actions and encouraging responsible consumption, which is vital for sustainable development. Education must align with societal ethics, striving to reduce waste and environmental degradation, which directly affect environmental, human and animal health.

Furthermore, technogenic societies are characterized by rapid technological changes and evolving environmental challenges, which can outpace traditional EE's ability to adapt. This underscores the need to emphasize critical reflection that considers the complexity of these issues, integrating extensive information on the technological systems shaping environmental problems. Just as overreliance on scientists can distance individuals from their responsibility, excessive faith in technology as a solution may have a similar effect.

To address these limitations, it will be crucial to enhance teacher training, emphasizing interdisciplinary content and presenting issues that reflect the realities of a technology-driven world.

COMMENTS

RESPONSES

The absence of a methods section is a significant shortcoming.

At the request of the reviewer, a method section has been added to the manuscript and alluded to in the abstract. The changes introduced in the methodology, including two citations, have influenced the order of the references, which has been modified throughout the revised manuscript.

[…] a more critical engagement with the literature could enhance the depth of the discussion. For example, section 4.4 is just the summary of the selected papers.

As explained in the “Method” section added to the revised manuscript, section 5.4 (4.4 in the original manuscript) aims to illustrate what we consider activities designed from a TEE perspective, rather than mere memorization or conceptualization (applied, decision-oriented knowledge). Specifically, this article explicitly relates the content of each of the individual publications mentioned as examples to the key content of this review.

The paper’s conclusion lacks one crucial aspect of the discussion of the study’s limitations.

At the request of the reviewer, the main limitations of the study have been noted in the “Limitations and future directions” section of the revised manuscript.

The paper should explicitly define its practical, research, and social implications […] guide readers on how the findings can be applied in real-world scenarios or future studies.

In response to the reviewer, the practical, research and social implications of the study have been more clearly integrated into the conclusions section of the revised manuscript. We hope that these are now better understood.

A detailed editorial review is necessary to correct these issues and improve the overall readability and quality of the paper. (eg. Line 456: 5. Future DirectionsConclusions)

All the editorial issues pointed out by the reviewer have already been addressed.

COMMENTS

RESPONSES

What is the main question addressed by the research?

The aim of this study is “to reflect on the current state of the issue and propose strategies informed by Science Education research to improve EE teaching, enabling the integration of One Health dimensions through effective didactics to achieve TEE” (the manuscript has been revised and the objective has been reworded accordingly). As emphasized throughout the document, these strategies focus on tackling challenges that demand systemic and critical thinking, fostering scientific and systemic practices, and raising awareness of environmental justice. To equip teachers with the ability to implement these strategies effectively in their classrooms, it is crucial to reform university teacher training programs to enhance their didactic competencies. However, the detailed design of such a teacher training program to improve instructional skills is beyond the scope of this paper (we apologize if any confusion has arisen regarding this point).

What part do you consider original or relevant for the field? I believe that the original part is represented only by the figures and examples at the end of the article?

We consider that our work contains the following original contributions:

·         It presents both the problem of teaching EE and the solutions (a new approach along with concrete examples for classroom implementation) in a unified manner, which is not common in the literature.

·         It synthesizes and unifies the broad theoretical framework from a fresh perspective: focusing on classroom practice and teacher training.

·         It proposes a non-hegemonic approach to EE instruction, based on the symbiosis of Environmental Education and Science Education teaching practices.

·         This symbiosis is further developed in light of the new competencies outlined in the European frameworks, which influence Science Education teaching practices. Specifically, the focus is on teacher training, and two new terms, WorkComp and TeachComp, are introduced.

·         It offers concrete, practice-based solutions after analysing the findings of two recent systematic reviews (Guevara-Herrero et al., 2023, 2024).

·         The problem of integrating EE with the One Health (OH) concept has been modelled and represented through figures to aid understanding.

·         Lastly, a more detailed definition of OH is provided than is typically found, including groups often omitted from OH figures and diagrams (e.g., microorganisms), even when addressing this concept in the context of antimicrobial resistance (e.g., Amuasi et al., 2020).

Could you describe the methodology? Which is the basis of the proposal of these strategies?

At the request of the reviewer, a method section has been added to the manuscript and alluded to in the abstract. The changes introduced in the methodology, including two citations, have influenced the order of the references, which has been modified throughout the revised manuscript.

How we could mesure this “raising awareness of environmental justice”? How could you measure the students understanding of their systemic nature? How could you measure the effectiveness of the didactically strategies? How could you measure the awareness, the changes in attitude and the changes in behaviours of the students?

We believe that environmental competence, encompassing raising awareness of environmental justice, understanding its systemic nature, and so on, can be cultivated in the classroom by engaging students in critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and the application of scientific practices (such as modelling, argumentation, and inquiry). This prepares students to make well-informed decisions in their everyday lives. By evaluating students' ability to connect and use available evidence, as demonstrated through discourse analysis (this is done in two of the publications in section 5.4.), we can indirectly infer their level of environmental competence. For teachers, it is also important to assess the didactic dimension of this competence, which involves critically analysing, designing, and applying rigorous methodologies and resources to teach EE effectively.

One way to measure this competence is by quantifying the number and quality of pieces of evidence students use and integrate to build an argument or propose a solution. The more and better evidence they consider (after validating and cross-checking its reliability), the more complete their understanding of the problem becomes. A key educational goal in our designs is to develop students' systemic thinking (including awareness of inequalities in an environmentally unjust world). This is a competency-based objective, not a conceptual one, yet it leads to the acquisition of conceptual knowledge (e.g., understanding the relationship between consumption and the economy, the effects of environmental degradation, the causes and consequences of resource overexploitation, and the interconnectedness of health within ecosystems). Once these conceptual relationships are established, we can say that students’ understanding of the problem improves, thereby enhancing their environmental competence.

However, evaluating behavioural changes remains a significant challenge in EE, as it is difficult to assess what happens outside the classroom. As we highlighted in section 7 (Conclusions), we must move toward a new form of EE evaluation that identifies the key factors driving behavioural change, since we know that students' awareness of being evaluated influences their responses. That is, they know the “correct” theoretical answers, but this does not necessarily translate into adopting these behaviours in their daily lives (practice), which is where the real transformation must take place.

How can we make a successful symbiosis between EE and Science Education teaching practices?

As explained in the methodology section and throughout the text, redefining classroom practices by emphasizing learning based on scientific and epistemic practices, advocated by international frameworks in science education, is key to addressing real-world problems, including socio-scientific issues and controversies (see section 5.3). Achieving this requires improving teacher education, so that educators are not only equipped to solve such problems but also to design learning experiences that engage students in these critical practices (see sections 5.1 and 5.2).

How could you make students sensitive to these topics?  Could you describe more how the EE aims to be driving force for behaviour change that promotes sustainability?

As mentioned in the text (see examples in section 5.4), students should be presented with real-world or realistic problems (socio-scientific issues and controversies) relevant to their daily lives and immediate surroundings. They should be encouraged to explore all connections to other areas (systemic vision) and tackle these problems by analysing evidence and developing their own solutions, rather than relying on those provided by the teacher. This approach helps them feel part of the solution, reducing disengagement. Furthermore, when students fully understand the problem and actively seek solutions, the ones they discover are often within their own capacity to act. This makes behavioural change easier to achieve, unlike when solutions are imposed by others without considering the students' specific context.

Could you specify the source of the figures? The concepts described in figure 3 are not so clearly explained. Which pedagogical methods to use for teaching effective environmental education? Could you describe more the difference between effective and ineffective didactic strategies? Could you describe more the differences between the unbalanced model and emancipatory model? Could you describe more these unsuccessful transition from multidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity in EE?

All the figures in the manuscript are original and have been created to visually model the key issues (some figures are related and/or complement each other). Moreover, information has been added to the caption of Figure 3 to facilitate clearer understanding. We hope we have answered all your questions.

Could you describe the historical example of Rachael Carson you cited in the end of the article?

At the request of the reviewer, this text has been added to the manuscript:

Historical examples, such as Rachel Carson's advocacy for pesticide regulation, most notably through her book Silent Spring, highlight the transformative power of individual actions in shaping environmental policies and raising public awareness. Carson’s work, which revealed the harmful effects of pesticides like DDT on environmental, human, and animal health, was instrumental in leading to their eventual ban and sparking the modern environmental movement. Introducing such examples in the classroom enables educators to illustrate the significance of environmental stewardship and inspire students to advocate for sustainable practices in their everyday lives.

You mentioned in the end of the article: “Several studies have identified various determinants shaping people’s environmental attitudes and behaviours” - could you cite those studies?

After the sentence mentioned by the reviewer, each of these determinants (e.g., psychological, social, etc.) was discussed separately, with different citations associated with each. To clarify this further, a multiple citation has been added at the end of this paragraph, referencing the three citations used: [52,86,87] (see section 6 of the revised manuscript).