From Learning Ecologies to a Social Ecosystem Model for Learning and Skills

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript and believe it makes important contributions. The writing is strong and you present many valuable insights. Overall, I thought the parts leading up to and including the “common principles” were strongest. I have some concerns about the model and the description of the model.

 

The SES acronym is commonly associated with socio-economic status, at least in the U.S. I recognize that you didn’t create this acronym, but I don’t know if you need to use it as you only refer to social ecological systems a few times. My rec would be to spell this out so that the main acronym you’re asking readers to remember is SEM (and VET). 

 

I appreciate the breaking down of learning ecosystem as a metaphor. But from in another view it is not a metaphor but rather a type of ecosystem. Most definitions of ecosystem run along the lines of - a community of interacting living and non-living things in a particular area”. A learning ecosystem would fit that definition. It might be more correct to say the metaphorical part is comparing human learning ecosystems to natural biological ecosystems—which themselves are a specific form of ecosystem. Again, I’m not quibbling with your insightful reflections, and there are parts of biological ecosystem that function metaphorically for learning systems; but perhaps a note that ecology and ecosystem when applied to human learning aren’t necessarily metaphors but extensions of the concepts.  

 

Hetch & Crowley should be Hecht & Crowley

 

I like the principles but they would be stronger if the language was parallel. I recommend making  them all sentences, like Principal 2, rather than sentence fragments.

 

Around Principle 7, I wondered how social media might fit in as part of the ecosystems that people now inhabit. This seems important to include in the principles somehow (and indeed, you bring this in later in the article).

 

The model in figure 1 has many parts and I worry that the complexity reduces the utility of this model. In other words, it may be too complicated to be useful. 

 

The ecology/ecosystem circle is graphically confusing. It’s a circle that overlaps with  some of the bottom circles of a bronfenbrenner concentric circle model and as such it’s visually unclear (and I didn’t find the description added a lot of clarity). 

 

Your definition of mesosystem on page 7 is not consistent with my understanding. Mesosystem is generally defined as the interaction between two or more Microsystems—which usually looks like adults from different systems interacting about a child or children; e.g., parents relationships with teachers; teachers interacting with each other;   school teachers interacting with youth program leaders, etc. This is important because strengthening the mesosystem has been a large component of learning ecosystem initiatives and your model is relatively silent on this. 

 

Relatedly, your article does not discuss learning in non-school settings (youth programs, afterschool programs, summer camp, etc.) except that VET might be considered a subset of this. Connecting learning outside of school and in school has been an important aspect of many learning ecosystem efforts (at least in the U.S.); for example, strengthening organizations that coordinate in-school and out-of-school learning. 

 

For the text that describes the figure you give 3 elements, 3 dimensions of element three, then 4 additional dimensions. This is confusing. 

 

The VET section with working, living, and learning, is excellent. Though I did find it odd that you included Figure 2— is this an evolution of Figure 1 or an alternative? Perhaps you might compare the two models’ utility for various purposes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs copyediting. I noticed many places where simple words like “to” were missing. I also noticed many instances of passive voice that should be converted to active voice..

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments.  I found them very helpful and have attempted to respond to each of them.  Here is a summary of the revisions.

Reviewer comments	Responses
1.     Clarify focus on SEM.	Second para amended p1.
2.     Consider human ecosystems as a concept extension and not just a metaphor.	Para included on p5.
3.     Principles section should be laid out as whole sentences rather than notation.	This section has been reviewed, amended and reformatted.
4.     Include social media in Principle 7.	Now included.
5.     Review Figure 1 to remove clutter and confusions.	Figure 1 has been reviewed and simplified.  Text in the diagram has been transferred to main text.
6.     Adaptation of Bronfenbrenner human ecological system unclear.	The various adaptations have been elaborated on p 12 in support of a spatial and political economy interpretation.
7.     Reasons for the inclusion of Figure 2 not clear.	The rationale for Figure 2 has been strengthened – namely that it reflects the broader application of the SEM beyond learning and skills and applied to understanding just transitioning.
8.     Manuscript requires thorough proof-reading.	This has been done, resulting in small textual revisions

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and interesting addition to the literature on learning and sustainability. After building a foundation for the ecological metaphorical device, it turns to some definitions. A long section on the term learning as a premodifier follows. Section three is what I would consider the “heart” of the paper, in which the new model, the Social Ecosystem Model, is presented in detail as it applies to learning in different contexts and for a Just and Green Transition. An example of its application to VET is given in section 4. Section 5 continues this example with recommendations.

 

My main recommendation for this paper is to tie in the 5 sections into a conclusion. The article ends with an example. There should be another section added – Conclusion – in which threads are woven together. The idea of ecology as a metaphor is very interesting and well explained but then it is dropped. How does the use of metaphor help us get to examples? Should we keep on doing this? Lines 276-278 states: “The focus of this article is the attempt to move from Stage 2 (the metaphorical stage) to Stage 3 (a theory-based exercise) of social ecosystem building that recognises the fundamental role of political economy forces and factors.” To me the aim is about the “move” from one to the next and so the conclusion should reflect on that. In terms of the importance given to the different sections, I find the metaphor section more helpful/informative that the modifier section and so if cuts need to be made to accommodate a conclusion I would make them in the modifier section. In order to strengthen the section on learning as a modifier, I think the author could answer the following questions and then adapt the text to make sure that they are answered: What does this section add to the thesis? What wouldn’t we understand if it were taken away?

 

Another main concern I have with the paper is that it does not recognize the long-standing tradition of using ecological metaphors in Indigenous populations around the world. At least a paragraph in section 1.2 or 1.3 should be dedicated to Indigenous scholars and their teams who are exploring this tradition, the implications of thinking in this way and its application to contemporary Indigenous and non-Indigenous settings alike. Indigenous learning strategies for sustainability in place-based contexts should also be acknowledged. Authors such as A Mashford-Pringle, E Tuck and LB Simpson could be consulted to compose this paragraph.

 

Another critique is the lack of emphasis on learning for the future. This is addressed briefly in lines 423-430. But in lines 163-164, is it deliberate that the future is not listed? I would add an item on futurisms as an important component of what needs to be learned. We need to address the limited ideas we have for our collective future, broaden the possibilities through learning. For example:

Ott, A. (2023). Utopia in environmental and sustainability education: imagination, transformation, and transgression. Environmental Education Research, 29(5), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2102583

Principal 8 could be an opportunity to discuss futurisms, as well.

 

Figure

Should the Chronosystem be labeled on the figure? It could be labeled Chronosystem/Ecological time?

 

Line 350 – I see that Chronsystem=ecological time. If you don’t wish to label it in the figure, maybe you could not talk about it in the list (lines 323-325) and wait until line 350, so that people are not looking for it on the figure

 

See attached document for edits to the English

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

For ease of reading, the author could more often include a comma after introductory clauses. Several, but not all instances, have been highlighted in the detailed comments below.

 

Inconsistency in the use of comma before ‘and.’ Journal guidelines should be followed. Also, the comma and the period go inside quotation marks.

Author Response

Many thanks for your comments and your detailed textual suggestions, both of which I found very helpful in improving the paper.  The responses are detailed below.

Reviewer comments	Responses
1.     Article requires an explicit conclusion that refers to the central methodological shift from metaphor to theory	A Conclusion has been inserted at the end of the article that refers both to the core aims and the possibility of model expansion in new contexts.
2.     The concept of the pre-modifier could be removed in order to focus on the metaphorical interpretation. 3.	This particular concept has been removed in order not to ‘overcook’ this part of the article (pp 7-8)
4.     The argument would be helped by reference to scholars of indigenous ecological thinking and practices.	A new paragraph with references has been I inserted on p 5.
5.     Similarly, the article would be strengthened by reference to future learning and thinking.	While this theme is touched upon in several parts of the article, it is now more explicitly addressed in Principle 8 of learning ecologies (p. 11)
6.     The chrono dimension should be clear in Figure 1.	It has been reviewed and now labelled – Social Ecological Time (top of diagram).
7.     The manuscript, as a whole, should be proofread with particular attention to be paid to the position of commas. 8.	This has been done.  In addition, the Word Editor has been applied throughout.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very strong revision. All of my concerns were addressed. I especially appreciate the minor edits in the introduction, the text additions on page 3, and the considerable refinement of the description of the expanded social ecosystem model. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The editing system makes it a little difficult to read, especially that deleted text is not shown (but I assume when a word comes next to a word with no space it means the previous word should be deleted). That said, the writing seems polished from the first version and strong.