Is Consuming Avocados Equally Sustainable Worldwide? An Activity to Promote Eco-Social Education from Science Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study is to investigate how students use evidence and what perspectives they integrate when making argued decisions related to a specific designed activity, so to assess the didactic potential of the activity.

The scope and approach to the topic is relevant to readers. The introduction is comprehensive and uses current references to support the ideas.

The end of the introduction section poses the aim of the study: “The aim of this study is to investigate how students use evidence to determine the sustainability of avocado consumption in Spain (objective 1) and what perspectives they integrate when making informed decisions (objective 2). The goal is to evaluate the didactic potential of the designed activity and contribute to the consolidation of the didactic dimension of eco-social education.” I would suggest to re-write the first objective, in the way it is explained in the abstract section or also in lines 116 and 117. Objective number 1 is explained with an excessive narrow perspective, and I think it would benefit from being more general. The topic used in the activity shouldn’t be the focus of the research questions or objectives, but rather the method used. I mean, the objective should be to explore and analyze how students use evidence (on any scientific topic) and what perspectives they integrate, but not specifically related to the sustainability of avocado consumption in Spain. The aim should go beyond the example used.

Method:

The methodological approach seems to be well built. It lays on a very popular pedagogical approach, case studies (different from the research methodology) that has been used for decades in law, business and medicine studies), although in this case they have not incorporated an individual reflection phase, before the groups discussion. Authors may also explore results of these other disciplines to incorporate best practices into their proposal.

In the final sentences (lines 208 to 210), you might clarify that when referring to “levels of performance”, you are talking about use of evidence.

Results:

In figure 4, the activity text is called “statement”. For clarity purposes, the same term should then be used from the beginning, for example in Figure 1 heading.

In lines 300 and 301, you mention that “researchers” have provided additional materials. Are these materials classified as “not provided” in figure 4 or are they different? What kind of additional materials are them? Are they provided to the three groups? Why are they not included as materials? This is not clear for me. Who are the researchers? I assume they are different from the facilitators, hence in what moment to the researchers interact with the groups and give additional materials? Or you are talking about the faculty who gives additional materials in previous sessions? It is not clear for me.

In line 321, you present figure 5: “To further explore the perspectives considered by the groups, we present which perspectives the students incorporate according to the level of mastery and the evidence used in each episode (Figure 5)”. Level of mastery is level of performance in evidence used, right?

Discussion

There is a good connection between the results and the discussion, and the conclusions are well supported by the citations already presented in the first section. The text would benefit from including shortfalls of the study and next steps in research. The activity is very punctual and further research would be needed. For example, I would find it interesting to analyze the role of facilitators, as it seems that they have influenced the performance of the different groups.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English use / typos:

Line 10 and 106 and 389: Singular/plural concordance.  Use either: "An environmental socio-scientific issues approach" or "training on environmental socio-scientific issues".

Table 1, politic perspective: “Material 6. Extract from the call for applications for application for aid to improve irri-gated crops in Andalucia”

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your very positive assessment of the manuscript, and for your suggestions for improvement. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files.

1. The aim of the study is to investigate how students use evidence and what perspectives they integrate when making argued decisions related to a specific designed activity, so to assess the didactic potential of the activity.

The scope and approach to the topic is relevant to readers. The introduction is comprehensive and uses current references to support the ideas.

The end of the introduction section poses the aim of the study: “The aim of this study is to investigate how students use evidence to determine the sustainability of avocado consumption in Spain (objective 1) and what perspectives they integrate when making informed decisions (objective 2). The goal is to evaluate the didactic potential of the designed activity and contribute to the consolidation of the didactic dimension of eco-social education.” I would suggest to re-write the first objective, in the way it is explained in the abstract section or also in lines 116 and 117. Objective number 1 is explained with an excessive narrow perspective, and I think it would benefit from being more general. The topic used in the activity shouldn’t be the focus of the research questions or objectives, but rather the method used. I mean, the objective should be to explore and analyze how students use evidence (on any scientific topic) and what perspectives they integrate, but not specifically related to the sustainability of avocado consumption in Spain. The aim should go beyond the example used.

Thank you for the suggestion, we completely agree with you, so the first objective of the study has been rewritten (lines 107-108): The aim of this study is to investigate how students use the evidence (objective 1) and what perspectives they integrate when making informed decisions (objective 2).

2. The methodological approach seems to be well built. It lays on a very popular pedagogical approach, case studies (different from the research methodology) that has been used for decades in law, business and medicine studies), although in this case they have not incorporated an individual reflection phase, before the groups discussion. Authors may also explore results of these other disciplines to incorporate best practices into their proposal.

Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that an individual reflection phase would be interesting for students to become aware of the problem posed autonomously. However, we would like to comment that the Interactive Group methodology does not involve individual work but consists of solving tasks in a dialogic way. We understand that this characteristic feature of the didactic methodology used is a limitation with respect to the case study method. Therefore, in response to this comment and to your other request about the need to incorporate the limitations of the study, this aspect has been included as proposals for improvement of the activity presented (lines 438-446).  

3. In the final sentences (lines 208 to 210), you might clarify that when referring to “levels of performance”, you are talking about use of evidence.

We appreciate your comment and in response to your request we have included the idea about the use of evidence (lines 209-210): Finally, to quantify the relationship between perspectives and levels of performance when using the evidence […].

4. In figure 4, the activity text is called “statement”. For clarity purposes, the same term should then be used from the beginning, for example in Figure 1 heading.

We fully agree with you. Since this may lead to confusion, it has been decided to use the word "statement" to refer to the text of the activity. We have also reviewed the concordance between other important terms, such as “mediating questions” or “reference response”. 

5. In lines 300 and 301, you mention that “researchers” have provided additional materials. Are these materials classified as “not provided” in figure 4 or are they different? What kind of additional materials are them? Are they provided to the three groups? Why are they not included as materials? This is not clear for me. Who are the researchers? I assume they are different from the facilitators, hence in what moment to the researchers interact with the groups and give additional materials? Or you are talking about the faculty who gives additional materials in previous sessions? It is not clear for me.

We regret any confusion this explanation may have caused. What we meant to say is that, when proposing solutions (level of performance 6), it is common for groups B and C to make the following combinations of materials: a) materials 1 and 2 with others provided or not; b) materials 3 and 7 with others provided in the activity. To clarify this idea the text has been modified (lines 300-309).

Also, indicate that when we talk about "not provided materials", we refer to arguments that students include based on their previous knowledge or personal experiences and not on the data provided. This explanation has been included at the bottom of Figure 4.

6. In line 321, you present figure 5: “To further explore the perspectives considered by the groups, we present which perspectives the students incorporate according to the level of mastery and the evidence used in each episode (Figure 5)”. Level of mastery is level of performance in evidence used, right?

The term "level of mastery" was being used as a synonym for "level of performance in evidence used". To avoid confusion, the term has been unified throughout the manuscript and now always appears as "level of performance".

7.  There is a good connection between the results and the discussion, and the conclusions are well supported by the citations already presented in the first section. The text would benefit from including shortfalls of the study and next steps in research. The activity is very punctual and further research would be needed. For example, I would find it interesting to analyze the role of facilitators, as it seems that they have influenced the performance of the different groups.

In response to your request and similar requests made by the other reviewers, a final paragraph has been included indicating the limitations of the study and future lines of research (lines 438-446). 

8.  Line 10 and 106 and 389: Singular/plural concordance.  Use either: "An environmental socio-scientific issues approach" or "training on environmental socio-scientific issues".

Table 1, politic perspective: “Material 6. Extract from the call for applications for application for aid to improve irri-gated crops in Andalucia”.

We welcome your comments on the quality of English language. These errors have been corrected and the entire text has been revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a didactic proposal. Any didactic proposal is always interesting but it does not necessarily imply that it is a current topic.

 

1.- Title, summary and keywords:

Title of the work: indicate that a work title in this format should not have a full stop. The proposal of the title is as if two different works are presented. It is as if the question posed is intended to capture attention, but it is not necessary. With the second part of the title it better fits the content of the work.

Summary: it begins with a phrase that is unnecessary. It is not necessary to raise the environmental issue when working on the issue of consumption of a specific fruit and it does not indicate at what level the didactic intervention is carried out. Nor do they indicate what research methodology they are going to follow.

It is not very clear, since it does not conform to the IMRYD structure.

Keywords could be reduced. Some could have been summarized as it could be considered repetitive.

 

2.- Theme and nature of the work:

The topic and the work are not particularly original since the environmental topic is important but it is not new and they do not relate it adequately to classroom implementation. Does it clearly indicate at what educational level the implementation is carried out? The didactic proposal is for what type of students?

The introduction should work on the importance of the development of critical-reflective thinking of the citizen through the training of the first educational levels. Although several pages of the work have been read, it is still not clear whether the educational proposal is for children between the ages of three and 11 or for future teachers.

 

3.- Source management:

The bibliography is extensive and quite up-to-date.

The theoretical framework is neither solid nor satisfactorily justified. Even in the methodology, not a single reference has been mentioned that supports the development of the work.

4.- Objectives and methodology:

They are not well defined. The methodology is not well specified at a scientific level. Qualitative quantitative? It does not adequately explain the dimensions of the study.

5.- Results and discussion

The graphics presented are adequate, but the explanations are not very detailed as they do not have a clear design explained and founded from the beginning. This work needs more preparation time for scientific justification and more “scientific maturity.”

6.- Format:

It seems that the work conforms to the magazine's writing standards.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files.

1.Title of the work: indicate that a work title in this format should not have a full stop. The proposal of the title is as if two different works are presented. It is as if the question posed is intended to capture attention, but it is not necessary. With the second part of the title it better fits the content of the work.

Regarding your suggestion to remove the question from the title, we understand your concern about maintaining a focused and concise title. However, we also believe that capturing the reader's attention from the outset is crucial in academic discourse. Furthermore, this question constitutes the researchable question of the activity presented. Therefore, if it is agreeable to you, we propose retaining the initial question to draw readers in, followed by a clarifying second part that succinctly outlines the content of the study.

2. Summary: it begins with a phrase that is unnecessary. It is not necessary to raise the environmental issue when working on the issue of consumption of a specific fruit and it does not indicate at what level the didactic intervention is carried out. Nor do they indicate what research methodology they are going to follow. It is not very clear, since it does not conform to the IMRYD structure.

We have addressed your suggestion into account and modified the abstract to include more details on the method used. We have also revised the concordance of the abstract with the IMRYD structure.

3. Keywords could be reduced. Some could have been summarized as it could be considered repetitive.

In response to your request, the number of keywords has been reduced. Specifically, the terms "Science education" and "Didactics of ecosocial education" have been eliminated. Thus, the terms included are the following: “Argumentation; Environmental socio-scientific issues; Systems thinking; Teacher training”.

In addition, the term "teacher education" has been replaced by "teacher training" to clarify the educational stage to which the activity presented in the paper is addressed.

4. Theme and nature of the work: The topic and the work are not particularly original since the environmental topic is important but it is not new and they do not relate it adequately to classroom implementation. Does it clearly indicate at what educational level the implementation is carried out? The didactic proposal is for what type of students?

One the one hand, we understand that the environmental issue is not new, but studies show that after a long trajectory (more than 50 years) the educational practice on environmental issues is still not effective. Given that teachers are a fundamental element in the teaching-learning process, it is essential to review what training in Environmental Education they are receiving to improve it. Thus, it seems necessary to focus their education on reflection, critical thinking and reasoned decision making, always from a didactic perspective of Environmental Education.

On the other hand, we regret that the educational stage on which the work is focused was not clear. To clarify this, one of the keywords has been modified, pointing out that the implementation of the activity presented in the manuscript was carried out in teacher training. This is also indicated in section 2.1. (participants and context), as well as in other sections of the document (abstract, key words, introduction, and discussion). 

5. The introduction should work on the importance of the development of critical-reflective thinking of the citizen through the training of the first educational levels. Although several pages of the work have been read, it is still not clear whether the educational proposal is for children between the ages of three and 11 or for future teachers.

We appreciate your comments and agree with you that Environmental Education activities should promote skills such as critical-reflective thinking in students. We also believe that it is important to work it from early stages (3-11 years old), since according to studies the impact of the interventions decreases as the age of the participants increases. In this teaching process, teachers play a fundamental role, and their training determines the quality of their classroom interventions. As clarified above, the intervention was carried out with trainee teachers. Therefore, it is important to explain in the introduction section what training in Environmental Education the teachers have received so far, and how it could be improved. All this, so that teachers can develop effective educational practices in environmental matters in their classrooms, from early stages.

3. Source management: The bibliography is extensive and quite up-to-date. The theoretical framework is neither solid nor satisfactorily justified. Even in the methodology, not a single reference has been mentioned that supports the development of the work.

We would like to comply with your request, but we would need to know which ideas of the theoretical framework you consider are not properly justified, since all reviewers consider that the bibliography used is adequate because it is extensive and up to date.

4. Objectives and methodology: They are not well defined. The methodology is not well specified at a scientific level. Qualitative quantitative? It does not adequately explain the dimensions of the study.

Thank you for your comment. In response to your request, it has been specified that the type of methodology used in this work is qualitative, applying the case study method (line 113). Also, please note that the dimensions of the study are described in detail in section 2.3. Even so, we are willing to assess and modify any specific issue that you consider appropriate to review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting however it might be useful to indicate that this (avocados) is an example of the implementation and can be used as a model for other country-specific investigations.  Similarly more effort could be given to drawing out the relevance of the findings to the broader research goals.

 

The IG methodology was an interesting choice especially when so little time was available to the groups.  The figures illustrated the core content however it would have been more interesting to the reader if the other resources was also made visible to readers.

The analysis was systematic and thorough.  Very good inclusion of the transcriptions to reinforce the findings.  The methodology was thorough and reported in detail.  I was not keen on Figure 5 - could it be presented in portrait?

More focus was needed on teacher education and how this style of activity can be managed, how the conclusions were drawn and why teacher education needs to change, how the change would be perceived..

Author Response

Thank you for your review of the manuscript and your comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted changes in the re-submitted files. 

1. The paper is interesting however it might be useful to indicate that this (avocados) is an example of the implementation and can be used as a model for other country-specific investigations.  Similarly more effort could be given to drawing out the relevance of the findings to the broader research goals.

Thank you for your comments. In response to your request and similar requests made by the other reviewers, a final paragraph has been included indicating that this activity can serve as an example for another research (lines 438-446). 

2. The IG methodology was an interesting choice especially when so little time was available to the groups.  The figures illustrated the core content however it would have been more interesting to the reader if the other resources was also made visible to readers.

Thank you for your suggestions. We agree with you that it is important for readers to have all the resources related to the activity. These resources can be found in the supplementary material (lines 447-452). 

3. The analysis was systematic and thorough.  Very good inclusion of the transcriptions to reinforce the findings.  The methodology was thorough and reported in detail.  I was not keen on Figure 5 - could it be presented in portrait?

We appreciate your comments. In response to your request, Figure 5 is now presented in portrait format. 

4. More focus was needed on teacher education and how this style of activity can be managed, how the conclusions were drawn and why teacher education needs to change, how the change would be perceived.

We believe that these issues are addressed throughout the manuscript.

The characteristics of teacher training in Environmental Education are included in the theoretical framework (lines 52-84). Based on the limitations mentioned in these lines, the need to redefine and reorient teacher training is justified (lines 85-104). Moreover, in order to know how to manage this activity, section 2.2. includes all the details about the didactic proposal (groups, development and student roles). The materials necessary for its implementation are also provided (supplementary material). As for the conclusions of the study, the last section discusses our findings in comparison with other studies in order to be able to draw conclusions based on the objectives of the work. Thus, the discussion focuses on the students' ability to use the evidence and the incorporation of different perspectives to solve the case. The analysis shows positive results in terms of student performance with respect to the use of evidence and the integration of perspectives, which leads us to consider this activity as a good proposal to improve teacher training.

We hope this explanation has made it clearer where to find this information in the manuscript. In any case, we are willing to include any other information you may consider necessary.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The different corrections made to the file seem correct to me.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your positive comments about our work. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The additions offer increased clarification however the link between this case study and recommendations for future uses of this method with pre-service teachers is still limited.  I was expecting a 'good practice' model of how to structure an interactive case study to promote critical thinking.  

Author Response

We appreciate your comments and find it very interesting since your proposal combines the didactic methodology with the research method of our work. However, this is not the objective of the study, since it is to know how students use the evidence and what perspectives they integrate when solving the proposed activity. On the one hand, this activity has been developed based on the didactic methodology of interactive groups, which requires a process of dialogic reflection, but does not necessarily imply that the work is on specific problems or cases. This didactic methodology should not be confused with others such as Problem Based Learning. On the other hand, in this work we have used the case study as a research method since it allows us to obtain concrete and deep knowledge on a specific topic. Therefore, to clarify these ideas and not to generate expectations about how to structure an interactive case study to promote critical thinking, we have modified the last paragraph of the discussion section (lines 438-447).