Online, Experiential Sustainability Education Can Improve Students’ Self-Reported Environmental Attitudes, Behaviours and Wellbeing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is presented clearly and concisely. It places us before the research problem and provides new perspectives on sustainable education. However, the authors could expand the theoretical part by indicating the initiatives that UNESCO and the United Nations have developed on this issue. In particular, there should be a brief description of the UN Agenda 2030, and how this type of research is integrated into these proposals. In addition, on different pages of the text (3, 6) references appear without indicating, an error that must be corrected so that the article can be published. The section on Limitations of the Study is to be valued, as it allows us to see how the authors are aware of the weak points of the study. In this sense, it would be interesting for future research to include a clear and evident protocol to remedy these complications. It would also be interesting for them to detail the workshops or actions carried out in each process, especially when indicating the importance they attach to experiential education for sustainable development. Finally, the quality of the methodological proposal must be acknowledged, which is clear and concise, coherently demonstrating the authors' approach and the steps developed throughout the project.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

This paper is presented clearly and concisely. It places us before the research problem and provides new perspectives on sustainable education. However, the authors could expand the theoretical part by indicating the initiatives that UNESCO and the United Nations have developed on this issue. In particular, there should be a brief description of the UN Agenda 2030, and how this type of research is integrated into these proposals.

• Thanks for this remark. We have added further information about UN initiatives including Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals; the United Nations University; and have also made mention of the Talloires Declaration: Designated as a pillar of sustainability (UNESCO, 1997), education can be a lever for improved environmental outcomes (Abson et al., 2017); ‘quality education’ is represented prominently as #4 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations (UN), 2015). Under the umbrella of the UN, numerous initiatives exist to advance progress towards this important SDG. For example, the international Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE) in Education for Sustainable Development program seeks to recognise collaborations working towards the SDGs. Within the higher education sector over 500 university presidents and chancellors across 50 countries have signed up to the Talloires Declaration, agreeing implement the “ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities” (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2015).

 

In addition, on different pages of the text (3, 6) references appear without indicating, an error that must be corrected so that the article can be published.

• We thank the reviewer for this point and have updated the references in the document.

 

The section on Limitations of the Study is to be valued, as it allows us to see how the authors are aware of the weak points of the study. In this sense, it would be interesting for future research to include a clear and evident protocol to remedy these complications. It would also be interesting for them to detail the workshops or actions carried out in each process, especially when indicating the importance they attach to experiential education for sustainable development.

• We have provided clearer guidance in the Future research directions section for how to address the limitations identified. For example: The results from this study suggest that behaviour change can occur through sustainability education – even online units. However, there are important questions around why the observed changed occurred and for whom; additional studies comparing units with different pedagogies, especially with and without experiential learning, online and in-person, could help explore the mechanisms and pedagogical elements responsible for impacts on students. Including demographic details in an evaluation such as academic background and performance, and socioeconomic variables would clarify the variation in impacts across subgroups. Longitudinal studies are also needed to determine whether and for how long reported behaviour changes persist for students..
• We have detailed in section 1.1 the actions students carry out in the unit which we have identified as important to the experiential learning process: Learning activities included surveying animals within students’ backyards, recording these observations and calculating species richness and diversity (assessment task 2: Backyard Biodiversity Assessment), and then observing the habitat available and reflecting on how it supports the observed species (assessment task 3: Backyard Habitat Assessment). Student learning was supported by scaffolding through earlier learning sessions and templates to help with structuring findings…The unit culminates with students developing a 'backyard biodiversity management plan’ (assessment task 4) for their yard (or nearby local area), building on their observations of wildlife and habitat throughout the semester and proposing modifications that could support greater wildlife biodiversity.

 

Finally, the quality of the methodological proposal must be acknowledged, which is clear and concise, coherently demonstrating the authors' approach and the steps developed throughout the project.

• We thank review 1 for this feedback.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE: Experiential online sustainability education can improve students' self-reported environmental attitudes, behaviours and well-being

TITLE: Title adjusted to the content of the text

 

SUMMARY: The summary is well structured, contextualises the study, explains the method and points out some first results.

 

 

INTRODUCTION. Adequate contextualisation is provided, with a brief overview of the theorists who address issues such as the pedagogy of sustainability, how to transform the behaviour of subjects in the framework of education for sustainability or teaching methods. It adequately contextualises the learning unit to be implemented to see if it generates changes in students in relation to their behaviour and attitudes towards sustainability and biodiversity.

The research questions are well defined: How does participation in the unit influence students' attitudes and behaviours around biodiversity conservation and sustainability? How does participation in the unit affect students' connection with nature and sustainability?

students' connection to nature and well-being?

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK or STATE OF THE ART: A brief overview is given in the Introduction section. This part should be improved by incorporating recent authors. Much has been written on this subject in recent years. While the empirical section provides results that are classified according to impacts on students' perceived biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connection to nature and well-being, the theoretical framework provides results that are classified according to impacts on students' perceived biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connection to nature and well-being.

and well-being, it is important that these concepts are developed in the theoretical framework as a matter of priority, to help the reader understand the constructs that the study is working on. It does not explain anything about online learning and this is one of the characteristics of the training model presented here.

 

METHODS: This is not a mixed methods approach, since this time only quantitative methodology is used, why do you allude to it being a mixed approach, and how do you justify it? There is no explanation of how the sample was selected... is it convenience sampling? Is the final sample of 261 significant? We know nothing about the participant population. It is not clear what procedure was followed to study the validity and reliability of the survey used, how was it done, how was the survey constructed, what constructs were considered in the creation of the survey?

It is stated that the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) by Mayer and Frantz (2004) was used to analyse the 14 questions of the Connectedness to Nature survey and that this tool was added to the survey in the last two cohorts. The question remains, with this new addition to the initial survey, how do we know that the final survey is valid and reliable? Also, it was used in the last two cohorts, does this make it difficult to make comparisons as the same tool is not always used for data collection?

 

RESULTS. Results are presented according to the sections set out in the survey: biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connectedness with nature and well-being. There is one item that has only 40 responses (Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS)). These responses are not significant and it is difficult to draw conclusions.

It would have been interesting to know if there are differences in the responses according to independent variables such as: gender, academic performance, socio-demographic background of the students, etc.

Another issue of concern is the length of time in which the Learning Unit was developed, since according to experts, changes in attitudes and behaviour can be generated if the intervention lasts a minimum of three months. Because the results may be affected by the immediacy of the completion of the teaching-learning process, but this does not mean that there has been a change in attitudes and behaviour. It would have been interesting to pass the same survey after some time (two or three months later) to see if the learning was fixed.

 

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The authors already claim in their discussion that the results do not ensure a change of attitudes and behaviours in the students, thus claiming that they are results of the implementation of a didactic unit but that the fixation of learning is not ensured.  Nevertheless, the discussion is well organised following the sections of the whole study: biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connection to nature and well-being.

The Unit is conducted online, this section is also not clearly addressed and the possible influences of whether the learning is online or face-to-face or synchronous are not specified.

 

In summary, this is an interesting study but there is room for improvement in order for its contributions to be valid and to provide scientific knowledge. An important limitation is that it is a case study and this makes it difficult to generalise the results. The implementation of an e-learning unit does not ensure changes in attitudes and behaviour in the medium or long term. All these issues should be improved in the presented study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE: Experiential online sustainability education can improve students' self-reported environmental attitudes, behaviours and well-being

TITLE: Title adjusted to the content of the text

• We thank the reviewer for this comment and have amended the title

 

SUMMARY: The summary is well structured, contextualises the study, explains the method and points out some first results.

• We thank the reviewer for this comment

 

 

INTRODUCTION. Adequate contextualisation is provided, with a brief overview of the theorists who address issues such as the pedagogy of sustainability, how to transform the behaviour of subjects in the framework of education for sustainability or teaching methods. It adequately contextualises the learning unit to be implemented to see if it generates changes in students in relation to their behaviour and attitudes towards sustainability and biodiversity.

The research questions are well defined: How does participation in the unit influence students' attitudes and behaviours around biodiversity conservation and sustainability? How does participation in the unit affect students' connection with nature and sustainability?

students' connection to nature and well-being?

• We thank the reviewer for this feedback

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK or STATE OF THE ART: A brief overview is given in the Introduction section. This part should be improved by incorporating recent authors. Much has been written on this subject in recent years. While the empirical section provides results that are classified according to impacts on students' perceived biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connection to nature and well-being, the theoretical framework provides results that are classified according to impacts on students' perceived biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connection to nature and well-being.

and well-being, it is important that these concepts are developed in the theoretical framework as a matter of priority, to help the reader understand the constructs that the study is working on. It does not explain anything about online learning and this is one of the characteristics of the training model presented here.

 

• We have endeavoured to incorporate recent publications exploring the impacts of online learning on - student perceived knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. We have addressed this issue here: “However, as online and hybrid learning proliferates education delivery, understanding how such transformational, experiential learning can occur via an online learning setting is needed. Research is also needed to understand how teaching approaches in these environments can and do support the development of sustainability mindsets and behaviours (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Davidson et al., 2021). Research with tourism and hospitality students demonstrated how digital learning was a critical moderating factor in the development of attitudes and values in support of sustainability (Horng et al., 2022). In their studies based in Portugal, Azeteiro et al. (2015) contend that e-learning can contribute to, and will play a role in, the transition to sustainable societal patterns due to the flexible style of delivery among other affordances to student cohorts. Liu et al (2021) found that internet use can have direct, positive effect on environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours (Liu et al., 2021). Mahmud et al. (2020) discovered that gamification using a mobile application improved knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours for students in an online sustainability learning environment. However, some students experienced barriers to the online learning gamification, including time constraints, boredom with repetitive aspects of the gamification, and lack of social interaction (Mahmud et al., 2020).”
• We have also developed a figure to present the study design to help clarify these relationships: Figure 1. A conceptual model of how features of the unit relate to Kolb’s experiential learning theory (ELT; Kolb, 1984) and how these features may contribute to outcomes. Underlying theories that support the identified pathways are colour-coded with green reflecting research on nature connection’s benefits (see Keniger et al., 2013; Ives et al., 2017 and Richardson, 2023 for syntheses), orange showing self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and light blue showing pathways supported by theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

 

 

METHODS: This is not a mixed methods approach, since this time only quantitative methodology is used, why do you allude to it being a mixed approach, and how do you justify it?

• Apologies – the overall project uses mixed methods as we also collected open-ended questions that we plan to analyse with qualitative techniques. However, this component of the project is quantitative and does not use mixed methods. We have revised the methods section of the document to clarify the methodology and sampling approach.

 

There is no explanation of how the sample was selected... is it convenience sampling? Is the final sample of 261 significant? We know nothing about the participant population.

• We have updated the methods and results section to better clarify the sampling design: Before the unit launched in June 2020, a before-after survey was designed to assess the student experience with the unit and the impact of the unit on student attitudes, behaviours and wellbeing (Appendix A; Ethics approval no. 26397). We used a survey-based, purposive sample aiming for coverage of the total target population by offering the survey to all students enrolled in the unit. Though the voluntary nature of the survey introduces important non-response biases, it was important from an ethical standpoint that participation in the survey was voluntary, anonymous and in no way linked to student success in the unit.
• We have also included a demographic table (Table 1) of the participant responses to describe the participant population in greater detail.

It is not clear what procedure was followed to study the validity and reliability of the survey used, how was it done, how was the survey constructed, what constructs were considered in the creation of the survey?

• We thank the reviewer for this question and have clarified in the 2.1.1 survey and recruitment section:
• The survey is comprised of unit-specific questions and a construct-validated survey tool to examine student demographics and changes to student-perceived biodiversity-related knowledge, attitudes, pro-environmental behaviours, connection to nature, and wellbeing (Appendix A). Questions with a Likert scale rated either student-perceived importance of a topic or how strongly a student agreed with a statement. The unit-specific questions were developed in tandem with the unit to specifically assess the intended outcomes of the unit design. These questions underwent a two-part validation process where they were evaluated by a colleague familiar with the unit design and intentions, and colleagues expert in survey design and analysis. After the initial iterations, small amendments were made to the questions to ensure greater clarity and alignment with research questions. These changes occasionally led to a mismatch between exact survey question wording from the before to the after survey or among survey cohorts. We detail these differences in Appendix B: Question Variance, and have tested for any significant effects such wording tweaks had on student responses

It is stated that the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) by Mayer and Frantz (2004) was used to analyse the 14 questions of the Connectedness to Nature survey and that this tool was added to the survey in the last two cohorts. The question remains, with this new addition to the initial survey, how do we know that the final survey is valid and reliable? Also, it was used in the last two cohorts, does this make it difficult to make comparisons as the same tool is not always used for data collection?

• We thank the reviewer for this question. The addition of the validated nature connectedness tool allows us to better explore the impact of the unit on multidimensional nature connectedness. The earlier surveys focus more on specific impacts of the unit on biodiversity-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and wellbeing. While there are other validated tools to explore the biodiversity knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and wellbeing, it was felt that using all validated tools would 1) make the survey too long by asking questions that are not relevant for the context of the unit, placing an undue burden on participants and 2) not ask questions specific to the contexts of the unit, possibly leading to false negative outcomes. We have clarified this perspective in the Methods: Though validated tools exist to explore attitudes, knowledge and behaviours, it was felt that including these tools would result in a survey that was too long, and would place an undue burden on participants.

 

RESULTS. Results are presented according to the sections set out in the survey: biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connectedness with nature and well-being. There is one item that has only 40 responses (Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS)). These responses are not significant and it is difficult to draw conclusions.

• We explain in the paper why that question has less responses. However, the reviewer is mistaken about the significance of those findings: the mean connectedness score increased significantly from before to after the unit. We have clarified this in Results section of the revised manuscript: The last two cohorts included the Mayer & Frantz (2004) Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), a validated 5-point scale for measuring the emotional connection with nature. Despite the small sample size, nature connectedness showed a statistically significant increase from before (mean = 3.91) to after (mean = 4.16) the unit.

It would have been interesting to know if there are differences in the responses according to independent variables such as: gender, academic performance, socio-demographic background of the students, etc.

• Unfortunately we did not collect these variables from students and, due to the anonymous nature of the survey, are not able to link to these sorts of variables in the University’s student database. However, we agree that it would be interesting. We discuss this in the Limitations section and suggest that future research collects such information: Including demographic details in an evaluation such as academic background and performance, and socioeconomic variables would clarify the variation in impacts across subgroups.

Another issue of concern is the length of time in which the Learning Unit was developed, since according to experts, changes in attitudes and behaviour can be generated if the intervention lasts a minimum of three months. Because the results may be affected by the immediacy of the completion of the teaching-learning process, but this does not mean that there has been a change in attitudes and behaviour. It would have been interesting to pass the same survey after some time (two or three months later) to see if the learning was fixed.

• We agree with the reviewer that we cannot make claims about the longevity of any changes observed in this study and we are in the process of conducting a longitudinal study to further explore whether and how these impacts last over time. We have mentioned this in the Limitations section: Third, the study relies on surveys administered to adults before and immediately after participation in the Backyard Biodiversity unit. Adults, through more time to practise and consolidate behaviour, are more likely to have developed habits that can act as strong barriers that block change to pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Therefore, it is unclear whether the identified changes persist beyond the unit’s conclusion.

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The authors already claim in their discussion that the results do not ensure a change of attitudes and behaviours in the students, thus claiming that they are results of the implementation of a didactic unit but that the fixation of learning is not ensured.  Nevertheless, the discussion is well organised following the sections of the whole study: biodiversity knowledge, pro-environmental agency, pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, connection to nature and well-being.

• We thank the reviewer for this comment.

The Unit is conducted online, this section is also not clearly addressed and the possible influences of whether the learning is online or face-to-face or synchronous are not specified.

• We have strengthened the theoretical background about how the online context might impact students: However, as online and hybrid learning proliferates education delivery, understanding how such transformational, experiential learning can occur via an online learning setting is needed. Research is also needed to understand how teaching approaches in these environments can and do support the development of sustainability mindsets and behaviours (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Davidson et al., 2021). Research with tourism and hospitality students demonstrated how digital learning was a critical moderating factor in the development of attitudes and values in support of sustainability (Horng et al., 2022). In their studies based in Portugal, Azeteiro et al. (2015) contend that e-learning can contribute to, and will play a role in, the transition to sustainable societal patterns due to the flexible style of delivery among other affordances to student cohorts. Liu et al (2021) found that internet use can have direct, positive effect on environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours (Liu et al., 2021). Mahmud et al. (2020) discovered that gamification using a mobile application improved knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours for students in an online sustainability learning environment. However, some students experienced barriers to the online learning gamification, including time constraints, boredom with repetitive aspects of the gamification, and lack of social interaction (Mahmud et al., 2020).
• We have also clarified the unit design: Despite being designed as an asynchronous, fully online unit, Backyard Biodiversity emphasises experiential and applied learning through place-based, outdoor activities and assessment tasks which require students to observe and engage with the plants and animals in their own backyard or local environment.

 

In summary, this is an interesting study but there is room for improvement in order for its contributions to be valid and to provide scientific knowledge. An important limitation is that it is a case study and this makes it difficult to generalise the results. The implementation of an e-learning unit does not ensure changes in attitudes and behaviour in the medium or long term. All these issues should be improved in the presented study.

• We thank the reviewer for their feedback and have endeavoured to address the shortcomings identified.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article reports on a research which highlights the potential of sustainability education for creating transformative behaviour change. The findings are important in understanding how sustainability education which is based on nature-based and experiential learning may contribute to positive attitudes and behaviours towards the environment. However, there are some considerations to be made before the article is eligible for publication:

 

1.       While the aims and structure of the Backyard Biodiversity Unit are defined in a separate chapter, it would be useful to learn more about the unit, such as its duration, the participants, etc. Also, it is explained that the unit was delivered online but it is not clear whether this is a standard mode or whether it was a remote learning option because of the Covid pandemic. What are the implications of learning about backyard biodiversity online? How do students’ digital competences affect the effectiveness of the unit? These are important questions which should be addressed at some point.

2.       The description of the participants, the nine cohorts of students, is rather vague. We learn about them almost in a passing way. It would also seem important to mention that the students’ age varies considerably, from 20-29 to 70-79 (it is not clear why the data is in the Appendix) and that age might be an important factor predicting attitudes and behaviour.  

3.       p. 6 “For the nine cohorts included in this study (the unit and survey are both ongoing at the time of publication), there was an average response rate of 70% in the before surveys and 22% in the after surveys.” What is meant by ‘the unit and the survey are both ongoing at the time of publication’?  Does this mean that the data may change? Also, it is not clear how the average response rate is important for the study, especially considering the very low response rate in the after survey.

4.       The presentation of the data in Table 1 is rather confusing. It is unusual to have a mixture of means, interquartile ranges and percentages in a single table. In some examples, it’s also not clear (if the data are presented in this way) that there is a statistical significance between the before and after results as the interquartile values are the same, for example in “Biodiversity is important for human health.” Separate tables followed by a more detailed description of results would make more sense. I would also recommend using APA-standard tables.

5.       The study reports an increased students’ knowledge of the plants, animal species and biodiversity after taking part in the unit as students self-reported being able to identify more plant and animal species in the after survey. However, this is a rather self-evident result after taking part in a unit aimed at increasing biodiversity knowledge so such a hypothesis is very likely to be correct. It is important, however, as the authors conclude, that an increased knowledge of biodiversity may influence also the students’ attitudes, behaviour and wellbeing and that nature-based, experiential learning pedagogies in authentic environments contribute to the outcomes identified.

6.       Some of the text is missing – p.6 “Error! Reference source not found. summarises the survey question results. Significant changes are indicated with bolded significance test and mean/IQR information. See Error! Reference source not found.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the text is good, I would only recommend proofreading it for punctuation and parts with incomplete sentences. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article reports on a research which highlights the potential of sustainability education for creating transformative behaviour change. The findings are important in understanding how sustainability education which is based on nature-based and experiential learning may contribute to positive attitudes and behaviours towards the environment. However, there are some considerations to be made before the article is eligible for publication:

1. While the aims and structure of the Backyard Biodiversity Unit are defined in a separate chapter, it would be useful to learn more about the unit, such as its duration, the participants, etc.

• We have clarified the duration of the unit (12 weeks) and we have introduced a table of the survey participant demographics.

2. Also, it is explained that the unit was delivered online but it is not clear whether this is a standard mode or whether it was a remote learning option because of the Covid pandemic. What are the implications of learning about backyard biodiversity online? How do students’ digital competences affect the effectiveness of the unit? These are important questions which should be addressed at some point.

- We have now clarified that the unit was designed as an online unit. We have also brought in some recent literature to support statements about how the online feature of the unit, may have impacted student learning, experiences and perceived changes to knowledge, attitudes and behaviours: However, as online and hybrid learning proliferates education delivery, understanding how such transformational, experiential learning can occur via an online learning setting is needed. Research is also needed to understand how teaching approaches in these environments can and do support the development of sustainability mindsets and behaviours (Azeiteiro et al., 2015; Davidson et al., 2021). Research with tourism and hospitality students demonstrated how digital learning was a critical moderating factor in the development of attitudes and values in support of sustainability (Horng et al., 2022). In their studies based in Portugal, Azeteiro et al. (2015) contend that e-learning can contribute to, and will play a role in, the transition to sustainable societal patterns due to the flexible style of delivery among other affordances to student cohorts. Liu et al (2021) found that internet use can have direct, positive effect on environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours (Liu et al., 2021). Mahmud et al. (2020) discovered that gamification using a mobile application improved knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours for students in an online sustainability learning environment. However, some students experienced barriers to the online learning gamification, including time constraints, boredom with repetitive aspects of the gamification, and lack of social interaction (Mahmud et al., 2020).

•  

 

2. The description of the participants, the nine cohorts of students, is rather vague. We learn about them almost in a passing way. It would also seem important to mention that the students’ age varies considerably, from 20-29 to 70-79 (it is not clear why the data is in the Appendix) and that age might be an important factor predicting attitudes and behaviour.  

• We have discussed this age variation in the Discussion section and have moved the participant demographics table to the Results: The student cohort is older and more female-dominated than traditional undergraduate units.

3. p. 6 “For the nine cohorts included in this study (the unit and survey are both ongoing at the time of publication), there was an average response rate of 70% in the before surveys and 22% in the after surveys.” What is meant by ‘the unit and the survey are both ongoing at the time of publication’?  Does this mean that the data may change? Also, it is not clear how the average response rate is important for the study, especially considering the very low response rate in the after survey.

• We have removed the statement about the survey being ongoing and have instead specified the time period over which the cohorts span for this analysis. We have also clarified that the average response rate here means average across all nine cohorts and is calculated separately for the before (70%) and after (22%) cohorts.

4. The presentation of the data in Table 1 is rather confusing. It is unusual to have a mixture of means, interquartile ranges and percentages in a single table. In some examples, it’s also not clear (if the data are presented in this way) that there is a statistical significance between the before and after results as the interquartile values are the same, for example in “Biodiversity is important for human health.” Separate tables followed by a more detailed description of results would make more sense. I would also recommend using APA-standard tables.

• We thank the reviewer for these points and have revised the tables in accordance with APA standards. We agree that it is not ideal to have different analyses in the same table and have debated how to present this data. However, we still feel that this is the best approach because the survey contains a mix of data types (e.g. discrete, ordinal, and continuous composite scores) which require different statistical approaches, even within a given category (e.g. Nature Connection). We prefer for the Table to keep the results and these categories together for easy access for readers. However, for greater clarity, we have explained the statistical choices in the Methods: Parametric t-tests (one-sided) were used to assess differences between the two groups where the variable of interest was continuous, while Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests were used where the variable of interest was measured on a Likert scale. Means were reported for continuous data, medians for ordinal data and interquartile ranges are reported for all variables for which before-after comparisons were made. For questions included only in the ‘after unit’ survey, percentages are used as a descriptive statistic.
• We have also updated the Table caption to clarify this: Survey question result summary. To present changes from the before-unit survey to after-unit survey, this table includes means and t-test outcomes for discrete and continuous data, and medians and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test outcomes for Likert scale data. Percentages are presented as a descriptive statistic for questions only included in the after-unit survey.

5. The study reports an increased students’ knowledge of the plants, animal species and biodiversity after taking part in the unit as students self-reported being able to identify more plant and animal species in the after survey. However, this is a rather self-evident result after taking part in a unit aimed at increasing biodiversity knowledge so such a hypothesis is very likely to be correct. It is important, however, as the authors conclude, that an increased knowledge of biodiversity may influence also the students’ attitudes, behaviour and wellbeing and that nature-based, experiential learning pedagogies in authentic environments contribute to the outcomes identified.

• We thank the reviewer for this comment

6. Some of the text is missing – p.6 “Error! Reference source not found. summarises the survey question results. Significant changes are indicated with bolded significance test and mean/IQR information. See Error! Reference source not found.”

• We thank the reviewer for this point and have updated the references in the document.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The language of the text is good, I would only recommend proofreading it for punctuation and parts with incomplete sentences. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research on that student connection with nature (and the benefits of such connection for well being and pro-environmental behaviors) could be improved through engaging with mentioned units is interesting and important. I find in this research the potential to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge in terms of providing students with experiences. Its weaknesses are related to methods. It is needed to edit and revise the method and discussion sections.

 

 

General remarks:

The research on that student connection with nature (and the benefits of such connection for well being and pro-environmental behaviors) could be improved through engaging with mentioned units is interesting and important. I find in this research the potential to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge in terms of providing students with experiences. 

The author (s) might provide a brief explanation depending on the table “demographic information of the participants” to give a clear understanding at the participants section. Even though the numbers and demographic information were provided for the carried-out survey with students, these do not allow a clear understanding for the participants. The sample information is as important as the sample size of the study to generalize the obtained results.

The reliability and validity information might be reported if it was calculated. It would give a better understanding to explain how the data was validated. It would be beneficial to add the development process of the data collection tool.  Providing more information on data collection tools and data analysis would strengthen the results and their implications, such as how the study was built to according to the theoretical framework. The lack of clarity in the methods and analysis sections poses challenges. The provided information is insufficient to comprehend the nature of the data, its collection process, and subsequent analysis. The author (s) might provide subtitles such as participants, content of the unit, data collection tools, data analyses, validity and reliability.

It would be beneficial to provide more information for data tools such as how the items were selected and how the survey was constructed.

The constructed tables on the results help to clarify the contribution.

The reason for study should be explained better related to the contributions to the national and international educational needs. This would help readers grasp the key takeaways from the study.

The rationale conclusion should be elaborated in terms of national education and this group of learners’ educational needs.

It should be explicitly stated what this research's contribution to knowledge about domain is beyond the current research in this area.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

The research on that student connection with nature (and the benefits of such connection for well being and pro-environmental behaviors) could be improved through engaging with mentioned units is interesting and important. I find in this research the potential to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge in terms of providing students with experiences. Its weaknesses are related to methods. It is needed to edit and revise the method and discussion sections.

• We thank the reviewer for this comment and have endeavoured to address all the raised concerns

 

General remarks:

The research on that student connection with nature (and the benefits of such connection for well being and pro-environmental behaviors) could be improved through engaging with mentioned units is interesting and important. I find in this research the potential to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge in terms of providing students with experiences. 

• We thank the reviewer for this feedback

The author (s) might provide a brief explanation depending on the table “demographic information of the participants” to give a clear understanding at the participants section. Even though the numbers and demographic information were provided for the carried-out survey with students, these do not allow a clear understanding for the participants. The sample information is as important as the sample size of the study to generalize the obtained results.

• We have brought the participant demographics table into the main paper and have discussed how the demographics might impact on the translation of these findings in both the Limitations section, noting the older demographics of this unit compared with traditional tertiary curricula: The student cohort is older and more female-dominated than traditional undergraduate units. As such, the findings may not be applicable to broader cohorts, including tertiary/community adult students in fields unrelated to sustainability or environmental studies, or the general population.
• We have also added comparison of the overall student demographics with the demographics of the survey participants: Participant demographics (Table 1) broadly align with the overall unit composition where 77.2% of students are female-identifying (81.4% in participants), 22.6% identified as male (16.7% in participants) and 0.19% defined as other (1.9% in participants). The participants ages were slightly higher than the overall student composition: in the unit, 51.1% of students are 40+, while for survey participants, 72.6% were 40+; 29.6% of students were in the 30-39 age group (18.3% for survey participants) and 18.8% of students were in the 20-29 category (9.1% for survey participants).
• which we have discussed in the limitations section: ; survey participants were a slightly older demographic than the student population. Therefore, the students who responded to both the before and after surveys may not perfectly reflect the student population of this unit.
• .

The reliability and validity information might be reported if it was calculated. It would give a better understanding to explain how the data was validated.

• This study did not develop any new tools or instruments. All data items developed specifically for the survey are stand-alone and not integrated into a composite tool. The survey uses only one existing measurement tool, the Connectedness to Nature Scale, which has been validated as outlined in the referenced paper.

It would be beneficial to add the development process of the data collection tool.  Providing more information on data collection tools and data analysis would strengthen the results and their implications, such as how the study was built to according to the theoretical framework. It would be beneficial to provide more information for data tools such as how the items were selected and how the survey was constructed.

• We thank the reviewer for this question. In the 2.1.1 survey and recruitment section we have clarified the survey and survey development process:
• The survey is comprised of unit-specific questions and a construct-validated survey tool to examine student demographics and changes to student-perceived biodiversity-related knowledge, attitudes, pro-environmental behaviours, connection to nature, and wellbeing (Appendix A). Questions with a Likert scale rated either student-perceived importance of a topic or how strongly a student agreed with a statement. The unit-specific questions were developed in tandem with the unit to specifically assess the intended outcomes of the unit design. These questions underwent a two-part validation process where they were evaluated by a colleague familiar with the unit design and intentions, and colleagues expert in survey design and analysis. After the initial iterations, small amendments were made to the questions to ensure greater clarity and alignment with research questions. These changes occasionally led to a mismatch between exact survey question wording from the before to the after survey or among survey cohorts. We detail these differences in Appendix B: Question Variance, and have tested for any significant effects such wording tweaks had on student responses
• We also added a conceptual model for the study which will further clarify the key theoretical frameworks underlying the survey and study design: Figure 1. A conceptual model of how features of the unit relate to Kolb’s experiential learning theory (ELT; Kolb, 1984) and how these features may contribute to outcomes. Underlying theories that support the identified pathways are colour-coded with green reflecting research on nature connection’s benefits (see Keniger et al., 2013; Ives et al., 2017 and Richardson, 2023 for syntheses), orange showing self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and light blue showing pathways supported by theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

 

The lack of clarity in the methods and analysis sections poses challenges. The provided information is insufficient to comprehend the nature of the data, its collection process, and subsequent analysis. The author (s) might provide subtitles such as participants, content of the unit, data collection tools, data analyses, validity and reliability.

• We thank the reviewer for this comment and have updated the Methods with details and sub headings to make it more informative and easier for readers to comprehend. Subheadings include: Survey and recruitment, analysis, and The Backyard Biodiversity Unit: content and design.

The constructed tables on the results help to clarify the contribution.

• We thank the reviewer for this comment

The reason for study should be explained better related to the contributions to the national and international educational needs. This would help readers grasp the key takeaways from the study.

• Kim, can you respond here and address this along with your response to reviewer 1?
• Thanks for this remark. We have included an additional paragraph in the introduction clarifying the contribution of the study in the context of meeting international education for sustainable development mandates.
• “Designated as a pillar of sustainability (UNESCO, 1997), education can be a lever for improved environmental outcomes (Abson et al., 2017); ‘quality education’ is represented prominently as #4 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations (UN), 2015). Under the umbrella of the UN, numerous initiatives exist to advance progress towards this important SDG. For example, the international Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE) in Education for Sustainable Development program seeks to recognise collaborations working towards the SDGs. Within the higher education sector over 500 university presidents and chancellors across 50 countries have signed up to the Talloires Declaration, agreeing to implement the “ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities” (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2015).
• Sustainability education has been integrated into Australia’s education landscape for over 20 years, with the National Action Plan (2009) for Education for Sustainability aiming “to tackle the underlying causes of unsustainable trends…[and] focus on systemic change” (DEWHA, 2009). While a policy landscape exists that supports embedding sustainability in curriculum, in practice it remains on the periphery of classrooms, as typically unassessed and poorly implemented (Bosevska & Kriewaldt, 2020; Hill & Dyment, 2016; Menon & Suresh, 2020). Research consistently finds that many educators do not feel knowledgeable or confident around sustainability education and do not know how to include it as part of their teaching practice (Barnes et al., 2019; Green & Somerville, 2015). While contextual factors including resourcing and access to professional development are barriers to implementation, a broader lack of evidence on whether and how pedagogies of sustainability education influence behaviours and attitudes of students further exacerbate the task (Curtis et al., 2021; Koehn & Uitto, 2014).”

The rationale conclusion should be elaborated in terms of national education and this group of learners’ educational needs.

• Additional text has been included in the conclusion that reflects back on how the study supports meeting international and national sustainability agendas.

“Sustainability education can be a leverage point for positive outcomes for sustainability including, as shown here, environments and student wellbeing. This study contributes important insights into pedagogical practices in sustainability education that can support international and national efforts for sustainable development agendas, including achievement of the SDGs. Additionally, this research supports university signatories of the Talloires Declaration in effective delivery of sustainability through teaching and learning initiatives. However, further research is needed to ensure transformative education is equitable, contextualised, just, and effective (Walsh et al., 2020)..”

It should be explicitly stated what this research's contribution to knowledge about domain is beyond the current research in this area.

• We have clarified some of the contributions of this study: The study reported here offers important and transferrable insights into how sustainability education can be delivered in a meaningful and accessible format…. This study contributes important insights into pedagogical practices in sustainability education that can support international and national efforts for sustainable development agendas, including achievement of the SDGs. Additionally, this research supports university signatories of the Talloires Declaration in effective delivery of sustainability through teaching and learning initiatives.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much improved version of the original paper. Nevertheless, there's still some room for improvement:

1. By including the conceptual model presented in Figure 1, the authors have provided an important further insight into the methodological framework of the study. The model is based on Kolb's learning stages which have been juxtaposed to reflect the procedures of the learning unit. I would recommend adding an explanation to make this point clear. It is also not clear why the model (together with the Backyard Biodiversity Unit content and design) is included in the introduction chapter since it provides an account of the research and methodology design. Finally, the model description should go into the paper text rather than the Figure title which should be short and concise. 
2. The authors have now included data on the participants’ age and gender. However, given the considerable variety of the participants’ age and gender structure, it is still not clear why the authors have not considered analysing whether and in what way age and gender predict attitudes and behaviour. Why leaving out such a conspicuous aspect?

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

This is a much improved version of the original paper. Nevertheless, there's still some room for improvement:

• We thank the reviewer for this feedback and their helpful suggestions below which improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. By including the conceptual model presented in Figure 1, the authors have provided an important further insight into the methodological framework of the study. The model is based on Kolb's learning stages which have been juxtaposed to reflect the procedures of the learning unit. I would recommend adding an explanation to make this point clear. It is also not clear why the model (together with the Backyard Biodiversity Unit content and design) is included in the introduction chapter since it provides an account of the research and methodology design. Finally, the model description should go into the paper text rather than the Figure title which should be short and concise. 
1. These are good points – we have revised the figure caption to be more succinct and mention the juxtaposition of Kolb’s stages with the unit features: A conceptual model of alignment among unit features, stages in Kolb’s experiential learning framework and unit impacts. Underlying theories that support the identified pathways are colour-coded with green reflecting research on nature connection’s benefits, orange showing self-determination theory and light blue showing pathways supported by theory of planned behaviour. 
2. We have moved the figure and Unit design and content sections to the start of the Materials and Methods section.
2. The authors have now included data on the participants’ age and gender. However, given the considerable variety of the participants’ age and gender structure, it is still not clear why the authors have not considered analysing whether and in what way age and gender predict attitudes and behaviour. Why leaving out such a conspicuous aspect?
1. Understanding the different impacts of online sustainability education for people across ages and genders is certainly an interesting question. However, we have not included this analysis for several reasons:
1. Performing a differential gender and age category analysis for each of our n = 19 analysis questions would significantly increase the total analyses performed on this data set (from 19 to 152 distinct analyses). With a sample size of 263, this many analyses would result in a very high likelihood of false positives.
2. Furthermore, due to the smaller sample size for males (n=44), we do not feel it is appropriate to analyse each question along gender lines
3. We feel this analysis would overcomplicate the study and would not align with our a priori research questions about impacts. We do not have reason to believe that the impacts of the unit (based on the theories in Figure 1) would be different enough across gender and these age groups for us to detect differences in this cohort.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research on that student connection with nature (and the benefits of such connection for well-being and pro-environmental behaviors) could be improved through engaging with mentioned units has potential to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge in terms of providing students with experiences.

Author Response

The research on that student connection with nature (and the benefits of such connection for well-being and pro-environmental behaviors) could be improved through engaging with mentioned units has potential to contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge in terms of providing students with experiences.

- We thank the reviewer for this positive feedback.