Environmental Literacy in Initial Teacher Training: Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of the Socio-Environmental Impact of Food

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the manuscript is well written and interesting for being published, but it needs major revisions. The vast majority of minor and major changes are written in the manuscript. Please, check them carefully and modify the manuscript to improve it for potential readers.

But, in short, the main changes should be related to:

• The explanation about EL (what is it, how to promote it, etc) is not enough. Authors should go deepen EL since there is no theoretical framework in the manuscript. Actually, I consider necessary to have a Theoretical framework section, in which you describe carefully EL, but also how to promote it in teachers training, etc.

• Some mistakes in the cites in the text should be solved ([Error! Reference source not found).

• Many mistakes regarding number of the references. For example, in line 140: According to Barraza Macías [34]. This is not correct. I reckon the mistake involves all the numbers of the references.

• Regarding Materials and Methods, the activities should be described more in detail. Readers are interesting in knowing the proposal and should be described to be reproduced.

• In addition, data collection and analysis tool should be described more in detail.

- Figures can be improve, according to my comments in the manuscript.

Please, check the comments and suggestions in the pdf I attach. All this comments are constructive in order to improve the manuscript and becoming it ready to be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The explanation about EL (what is it, how to promote it, etc) is not enough. Authors should go deepen EL since there is no theoretical framework in the manuscript. Actually, I consider necessary to have a Theoretical framework section, in which you describe carefully EL, but also how to promote it in teachers training, etc.

Response 1: We have added a Theoretical Framework section in the manuscript, in which Environmental Literacy (EL) is described in detail. This new section addresses what EL is, its importance, and how it can be promoted specifically in teacher education. This inclusion provides solid theoretical context that supports our study. We have also explained the relationship between Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainability. Lines 45-49

We have added information regarding the definition of EL. Lines 80-84

We have added information on food. Lines 104-112

Comment 2: Some mistakes in the cites in the text should be solved ([Error! Reference source not found).

Response 2: We have corrected the citation errors mentioned. All references are now correctly formatted and the [Error! Reference source not found) has been solved.

Comment 3: Many mistakes regarding number of the references. For example, in line 140: According to Barraza Macías [34]. This is not correct. I reckon the mistake involves all the numbers of the references.

Response 3: The numbering of all references throughout the manuscript has been reviewed and corrected. For example, the incorrect reference in line 140 has been corrected in accordance with the comments provided.

Comment 4: Regarding Materials and Methods, the activities should be described more in detail. Readers are interesting in knowing the proposal and should be described to be reproduced.

Response 4: We have expanded the description of the activities carried out in the Materials and Methods section. The new detailed description enables the readers to learn about the proposal. It includes the sequence of activities, specific objectives, and the methodologies employed. Lines 114-177

Comment 5: In addition, data collection and analysis tool should be described more in detail.

Response 5: The description of the data collection and analysis tool has been improved. A more detailed explanation on the use of MAXQDA 2022 and the specific procedures followed for the analysis of qualitative data is now included. Lines 189-222

Comment 6: Figures can be improve, according to my comments in the manuscript.

Response 6: 

We have revised and improved the figures in accordance with your comments in the manuscript. The quality and clarity of the figures has been enhanced, facilitating the visual understanding of the data presented.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: A more detailed discussion of literature on the environmental impact of food is needed. Since the study's primary focus is on food, it is important to clearly point out and discuss how food is impacted by (or how food consumption) impacts or contributes to the current environmental crisis. Also a concise description on why they think food is a powerful tool to promote EL among pre-service teachers. This would give the reader a comprehensive understanding of the study's focus. Including literature on food is a critical component of the manuscript as it will help the researchers link the literature to their findings.

Response 1: 

We have added a more comprehensive analysis of the literature on the environmental impact of food in the introduction to the manuscript. This analysis stresses how food production is affected by climate change, and how its consumption influences environmental sustainability in the EU context. Lines 104-112

We have also included a clear description of why we consider working on food as a powerful tool for promoting Environmental Literacy (EL) among pre-service teachers. This provides a fuller understanding of the focus of the study. Lines 45-49

Comments 2: 

Another suggestion is for the author to consider exploring a theoretical framework for anchoring their work, e.g., the ‘Value belief norm.’ theory (Stern, 2020) - focuses on individual choice and environmental behaviours.

Response 2: 

We have explored and included a theoretical framework based on the theory of the “Value- Belief-Norm” (Stern, 2020). This framework allows us to situate our study in a solid theoretical context that focuses on individual choices and environmental behaviour. Lines 54-60.

Comments 3: 

Student diaries are described as the only data collection tool, although from the methods description, it is clear that pre- and post-questionnaires are also used to collect data. This form of data collection and its analysis must be detailed in the ‘Data collection and analysis tools’ section.

Response 3: 

Although student diaries are described as the main data collection tool, we have clarified and detailed the use of pre- and post-questionnaires for data collection in the Data collection and analysis tool section. This additional description provides a more complete overview of the methodological process employed. This study is part of a larger research project in which numerous data collection tools were used, including the above-mentioned questionnaire. It is true that the students in this study participated in this project, and therefore answered these questionnaires. These data have not been used in this research, as the purpose of this research was to analyse how a didactic proposal and its activities focused on sustainable food influence Environmental Literacy (EL). Lines 186-219

Comments 4: 

the results are not consistent with the methodology. The report is missing findings on change in students’ ideas. The findings do not even mention the findings from stage 1 and stage 3 as of the methodology AKA pre-and post surveys that are described in lines 118-125 and lines 130-132.

These two phases of the study were conducted to find out if the students' ideas had changed after implementing the didactic proposal. If this data is not part of the study, the two phases should not be included in the study description.

Response 4: 

We have reviewed and revised the Results section to ensure consistency with the methodology described.

Phases 1 and 3 of the study, mentioned in lines 118-125 and 130-132, have been removed from the methodological description to maintain consistency.

Comments 5: 

The discussion needs to be extended to make a stronger argument about use of food in this study. For example how and why food is a concept helped improve EL among student teachers. It is important to show how this study contributes to literature on improving EL among pre-service teachers. As mentioned earlier, although using food to teach EL among pre-service teachers is the focus, the author(s) did not review literature on food and did not make a strong argument that link to the title- ‘Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of the Socio-Environmental Impact of Food’.

Response 5: 

We have strengthened the Discussion and Conclusion section by incorporating additional studies that stress the importance of educational approaches that promote an emotional connection to the environment. This includes references to relevant literature highlighting the effectiveness of such approaches in promoting pro-environmental behaviour. Lines586-593

Attached you will find the revised version of the manuscript, along with a document detailing the specific modifications made to each section based on your valuable suggestions. All changes appear in blue within the document.

Once again, we thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our work. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions made meet your expectations, and we are open to any additional suggestions you may have.

Yours faithfully,

Lucía Rodríguez Pérez, Pilar Azcárate Goded and Esther García González

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the manuscript can be published in the current format. Although it is true that I miss a theoretical framework section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The researchers addressed the issues raised in the review. The main issues in the first draft were a lack of Literature on food and a disconnection between the data collection methods listed and the data used for this study. These issues have been addressed.