A Comprehensive Approach to Water Literacy in the Context of Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of this article refers to a curriculum proposal that is fundamental to current social problems resulting from climate change that comes from human activities.   It seems like an article, without materials and methods,  discussion of the "results obtained". So, I suggest to change the title to "Review on the main models to face hydrosocial problems and educate about water sustainability".     All the ideas contained in this article are collected from a wide range of different publications all related to the topic covered, but without proposing any original teaching model, so it seems more like a review than an original article.      In the “Four Component Model of Ethical Decision Making” the authors simply explore and explain the Rest ideas.    The authors list green schools, in-service teacher training, stakeholder engagement and other models for promoting pro-environmental behaviours.    They write about the importance of conserving water and its quality and understanding the hydrosocial cycle in Australian schools, but they never suggest an original approach to teaching or raising student awareness.   They write that the water cycle is rarely, if ever, taught in detail in Australian schools, it seems that they simply suggest to implement it in several curriculum subjects, but no original educational strategy is presented.   

We must eliminate the model of the water cycle: the image shown is naive, it seems to come out of a children's book: with the coloured ship, the little fish in the sea, the palm trees on the beach and the pine trees on the mountains...

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions and review. 

First I agree the diagram is a bit simple and not required so I have removed it.

Also i have re-structured the subheadings and added some more cogent arguments to help lead the reader to the point of the article which is a perspective on the urgent need for a curriculum based on the hydrosocial cycle in the context of climate change. 

I cannot use the title you suggest as i am only proposing one model to teach students about the water cycle to enable them to appreciate the current  climate change impacts upon it, to allow them to make informed decisions around mitigation and adaptation. 

The education strategy suggested in the article is to embed the water cycle through diverse disciplinary areas so that students can see its applications and the impacts of climate change upon it. Please have a look at the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a correctly produced manuscript, which could be published as a "(Authors') Perspective", if the journal allows such a type of academic article. The quality is, according to my opinion, much lower than of a typical review article, since there is no clear structure, but rather a very broad and extremely unstructured presentation of many different topics, relevant for education about clean water and the implications for natural sustainability. The manuscript would benefit from structuring, starting with ethical and practical imperatives for education about clear water and clean oceans, the water literacy concept, proceeding to significant global initiatives and special events, and concluding with an engaging framework on how to teach water literacy in schools. Some topics are superficial and should be omitted, such as Table 1, with specific project topics within a single environmental education initiative. Similar recommendation applies to Chapter 5, where a lot of emphasis has been put on water cycle, including the presentation of an educational material. Such a material cannot be included into a scientific manuscript, unless it serves some specific purpose. In addition, this chapter mixes many different topics and has no internal logic in presenting them. Altogether, author(s) are invited to rethink the topics to be presented and strictly organize them in an appropriate manuscript structure, instead of continuously mixing many different arguments and themes. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions. I have restructured the paper to better reflect its intent and used your suggestions as subheadings.

It is a "Perspective" as you have noted. The table 1 which you suggest should be removed has been retained because it is designed to show how easily activities to highlight water conservation and purity can be implemented in elementary settings a beyond. I have also simplified the section on the water cycle to retain only the impacts of climate change - this is essential because readers of the paper are likely not going to be climate scientists but rather policy makers and educators from diverse (mostly non- science ) backgrounds. 

I hope you can see the changes to the manuscript including the change in referencing highlighted in yellow. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The last sentence of the 1st section, suddenly, mentions “Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative”. “Australia” is also mentioned in 2nd section, etc. I think a separate paragraph/sub-section (e.g., in introduction) should introduce the Australian context, with regard to the discussed topic. E.g., in Australia, what does the existing curricula for primary and secondary school children suggest/mention on the topic? It is necessary, since the authors, in subsequent sections, discuss about blue curricula. Also, for schools, do authors refer to students’ aged 6-18 years old? It would be useful to create a Table indicating main topics (e.g. in Australian school curricula in correspondence to students’ ages/levels).

The purpose of this study and the specific research objectives are missing. In conclusion we read “This article aims to highlight to schools and educators various ways to connect discipline areas to provide a blue curriculum focus using a comprehensive perspective of the hydrosocial cycle across K-12 to enhance water literacy in the face of climate change”. The purpose should appear at the end of the introduction and should be clear, and with regard to about students’ ages.

The authors mention “German university freshmen” and “tertiary education institutions must incorporate and emphasise courses.”, while K-12 (mentioned in conclusion) regards kindergarten to 12th grade. The paper lacks clarity on students’ age-ranges.

Major re-organization is needed to enhance the scientific content of the paper; different issues (theory, evidence, suggestions) are presented all over the paper, and this indicates lack of clarity.

The literature review should constitute a separate section (currently, aspects of it are included in different sections). It should discuss earlier research on (primary and secondary school) students’ ideas and diagnosed difficulties/misconceptions on water/hydrological cycle etc. (including country and students’ educational level).

Section 7 includes some evidence on teachers’ views and practices: The literature review could include sub-sections regarding students’ and teachers’ views. It is useful that all research evidence appears in one place.

Section 5 “The effects of climate change upon the water (hydrological) cycle” is lengthy. For a scientific paper, we do not need to read about what is “The water cycle”, but to read about empirical evidence on student’s ideas, interventions (including information technology interventions), learning outcomes, etc.

Table 1 does not add something to the readership of the paper. The authors could create their own Tables such as what the current curricula include and what THEY SUGGEST to be included (with students’ age-ranges, subjects, etc.)

Section 7 is also lengthy, and this prevents the paper’s cohesion. Theories on deontology and ethics (Kant, Bentham, etc) could be left out or mentioned in maximum 2 lines.

What is the significance of this study to the field?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your suggestions to modify the paper. As you can see from the highlighted sections i have followed most of your instructions.

One point that i have not  followed is to make a list the areas in the Australian curriculum where the water is taught - simply because it is taught in so few grades / subject areas. I do note where it is taught in Grade 7 in science and geography and Grade 9 Geography. However, as an ex science teacher I also know that the water cycle takes up minimal teaching time in schools in Australia due to the crowded curriculum currently in place. 

As suggested I have re-organised the paper for better flow and to enhance the argument of the perspective. 

Since this is not a review on students' ideas and interventions around the water cycle (partly because so little has been done in recent years) your suggestion to:

.....discuss earlier research on (primary and secondary school) students’ ideas and diagnosed difficulties/misconceptions on water/hydrological cycle etc. (including country and students’ educational level) is not followed. 

Another treason for this is that recent reviews noted in the paper (especially in section 3, ref 28) strongly suggest that water literacy and understanding of the water cycle is low across all educational levels and domains, including policy papers, textbooks and teaching materials from around the world, including students of all ages as well as teachers.

So that indicates that there is an urgent need for a greater emphasis on water cycle / hydrosocial cycle  understanding in schools in the context of a warming planet to prepare students to adapt to and mitigate  climate  change effects that impact water availability and purity. This is precisely the argument underpinning the paper rather that what sort of pedagogies have been used to teach the water cycle.  Given that the hydrosocial cycle is not currently used in texts or teaching materials a literature review as you suggested would not likely yield research on student understanding of the impacts of climate change on the water cycle.

Where available student age ranges have been included however, it seems clear from the reviews cited that students leave school with little understanding of the water cycle and certainly not of climate change impacts upon it. This seems to be the case for students from all countries whose papers have been included in the article.

Your suggestion to leave the ethical frameworks out or minimize them does not help to illustrate the example used to show how teachers might elaborate and teach potentially sensitive topics. So i have left them in the paper.  Again in my experience teaching preservice teachers ethics, most are unaware of the influences that shape their views and so I believe that readers of this article who are likely not going to be philosophers may appreciate the illustrations of ethics and how they can shape teaching of sensitive issues like the impacts of human activity upon the water cycle inducing climate change effects. 

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised version, this manuscript has a much improved structure, although it still retains the nature of the authors' perspective toward the topic of "blue curriculum". In order to further improve the manuscript, I would suggest the following:

1) Since you discuss multiple aspects of education, related to the water literacy, please consider changing the title of the paper. Instead of "blue interdisciplinary school curriculum", consider using the term "comprehensive approach to water literacy". Your paper does not deal with curriculum only, but rather to a comprehensive approach, which could empower educators to competently discuss the topic of water literacy.

2) Please consider including a short review of the structure and topics, to be covered by your paper. This should be done in the last paragraph of the Introduction and Context chapter. Such a revision would make the manuscript much more attractive to readers, who will know at the beginning of their reading, what they can expect from the manuscript.

3) I still believe that your Table 1 and the entire discussion of what has been done by a single US school, on the occasion of the World Water Day, does not contribute to the understanding of the broader and global imperatives to ensure water literacy in schools. I think deleting of this content makes your manuscript much more readable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I have followed your suggestions - please see highlights in green.

The title needs to include the words climate change so that is why those words appear.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the paper is suitable for publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your acceptance of the manuscript.