Attitude Construction toward Invasive Species through an Eco-Humanist Approach: A Case Study of the Lesser Kestrel and the Myna
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic addressed in the study is relevant.
The study is well-founded.
In the abstract, the study's objective is stated: "to examine to what extent, if at all, there is a difference in the ethical attitude of the fifth-grade students towards the conflict between the Lesser Kestrel (local species) and the Myna (invader species) and the solution to this conflict following the change in the teaching approach to eco-humanist." In the abstract, more information should be provided about the participants, such as the number of students, age (10-11 years), and the data collection and analysis methods.
The introduction aligns with the research topic and is well-structured.
The cited bibliography is relevant, covering issues pertinent to the research described in this work.
The methodology section should be expanded. To enhance understanding, a subsection related to the research design should be included in the methodology.
The study's purpose mentioned in the abstract should match the objective presented in the introduction on page 2, lines 95-97: "the study aimed to investigate fifth-grade students' perspective on invasive species after the transition from a curriculum rooted in the biocentric approach to one grounded in the eco-humanistic approach."
On page 2, paragraph 1, lines 98-102 should be rewritten to avoid confusion between the research objectives presented and the educational objectives of the program.
On page 4, paragraph 5, lines 189-195, revise the research objective and research questions. The research objective should remain consistent throughout the article. The second research question is poorly formulated and should explicitly refer to the possible solutions proposed by the students.
In the conclusion section, make references to the research objectives and how the results enable answers to the research questions.
Review the references, e.g., Fang "The Living…" on page 14, line 573.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
I thank you for your time and efforts in reviewing my manuscript. In my response to the reviewer 1, I have addressed all the comments you raised.
I hope that my revised manuscript will be considered as suitable for publication.
Most Sincerely,
Dr. Adiv Gal
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author/s,
I have read with attention your paper. It could surely be interesting and stimulating from different points of view. I’m going to list some comments and notes that could be useful to improve some aspects. (I wish to share with you, here below, only the most important of them).
Lines 191 and later – You have written “from a curriculum rooted in the biocentric approach to one grounded in the eco-humanistic approach” but you have not given explanation about what this change meant from a didactical point of view since 244 lines and later.
Lines 224-225 – You mentioned the “comparison of these components between the two research groups” but I don’t have clear what are these groups. Are they those groups mentioned in the lines 234-235? If yes, you need to explain rigorously at the beginning of the “Materials and methods” section the differences between them. For how many times have students of the research groups followed the educational program (line 243 and later)?
Lines 292 and later – This ethics section need to be discussed in the “Materials and methods “section and not within the results.
Lines 309 and later – In this section you repeat/ synthetize what you have discussed in more detail in the next section (lines 327 and later), so it seems to me a repetition.
I’m sure that a rearrangement of the paper, in particular of the methodological section, could improve the weaknesses mentioned above. I wish thank you for your interesting and stimulating contribution to an interesting debate.
My best regards
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of english language seeems to me good but there are some errors; moderate editing is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
I thank you for your time and efforts in reviewing my manuscript. In my response to the reviewer 2, I have addressed all the comments you raised.
I hope that my revised manuscript will be considered as suitable for publication.
Most Sincerely,
Dr. Adiv Gal
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The study describes the ecohumanistic concept, which has shown its potential in education by facilitating a comprehensive and ethical approach to environmental education. Indeed, adopting an ecohumanist approach suggests its significant educational value for environmental educators who delve into complex topics, thereby fostering ethical introspection that can shape a future distinct from the present. The article reflects the ongoing debate in the academic literature, emphasizing that good intentions do not always guarantee the desired results in ecological education programs, as exemplified by the conservation of the lesser kestrel.
2. Subject is original and research is interesting for all scientists who research of what were ecohumanitic approach in school education
3. The methodology to use in the research is enough.
4. The conclusions are answers for main questions.
5. The references and tables are appropriate.
Author Response
I appreciate your thorough reading of the article and your alignment with its content.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have made notable improvements to the second version of the article in response to the suggested corrections. I consider that the article can be published in the current version.
