Sevgi
Aydin Gunbatar
*a,
Betul
Ekiz Kiran
b,
Yezdan
Boz
c and
Elif Selcan
Oztay
a
aMathematics and Science Education Dept., Faculty of Education, Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey. E-mail: sevgi.aydin45@hotmail.com
bMathematics and Science Education Dept., Faculty of Education, Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
cMathematics and Science Education Dept., Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
First published on 29th October 2024
This study reviewed the green and sustainable chemistry education (GSCE) research that provided training at the tertiary level from 2000 to 2024. The Web of Science and ERIC databases were screened using title and abstract review. In total, 49 studies were analysed. The analysis instrument has two main parts, namely, general characteristics of the training, which was formed in light of the GSCE literature (i.e., chemistry sub-disciplines, type of implementation, and context), and analysis of the training through the lens of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) construct that is the commonly-used framework for the analysis of training regarding orientation to teaching GSCE, learner, curriculum, assessment, and instructional strategies utilised. Results showed that organic chemistry (n = 15) is the most emphasised branch of chemistry in the articles. Regarding the learner component, the studies were inadequate, and very few studies provided information about the misconceptions and difficulties that students may encounter while learning GSC. Regarding the curriculum component, among the green chemistry principles, ‘use of renewable feedstocks’ was the most emphasised, while the least emphasised ones were ‘reduce derivatives’ and ‘real-time pollution prevention’. Fourteen studies used subject-specific teaching strategies (e.g., cooperative teaching and project-based strategies). Although representations are not used in GSCE, most of the studies included laboratory studies (n = 31). Finally, regarding the assessment, very few studies focused on measuring students' skills (laboratory skills, discussion skills, etc.) and affective variables. In light of the findings, GSCE training should get more benefit from the literature on science/chemistry teaching strategies. Moreover, alternative assessment tools (e.g., rubrics and concept maps) should be utilized regarding the instruments utilized to assess the participants' GSC knowledge.
In the field of chemistry, the Green Chemistry (GC) movement started with the seminal work of Anastas and Warner (1998). The list of 12 principles of GC served as a compass for the field. The green chemistry approach seeks to redesign the materials that make up the basis of our society and our economy—including the materials that generate, store, and transport our energy—in ways that are benign for humans and the environment and possess intrinsic sustainability (Beach et al., 2009, p. 1038).
In continental Europe, the GC concept, originating in the United States, has been handled slightly differently and broadly and is coined as Sustainable Chemistry (SC). OECD defined SC as
… a scientific concept that seeks to improve the efficiency with which natural resources are used to meet human needs for chemical products and services. Sustainable chemistry encompasses the design, manufacture, and use of efficient, effective, safe, and more environmentally benign chemical products and processes (OECD, 2020).
In this study, we adopted the Green and Sustainable Chemistry (GSC) hybrid approach, which, as in Eilks and Zuin (2018), incorporates both traditions and takes a more sustainable, environmentally friendly, and socially responsible view of chemical production.
For more than 25 years, GSC training has been provided, but there are still debates in the literature about the characteristics of this training, which led to the research purpose of this study. MacKellar et al. (2020) stated that although GSC educators have designed and provided GSCE, “educational resource development and dissemination efforts have been largely uncoordinated …. thus, integration of green and sustainable chemistry concepts across the chemistry curriculum remains a work in progress” (p. 2104). Likewise, Armstrong et al. (2024) argued that the training put unequal emphasis on the assessment part. Additionally, regarding the instructional strategies implemented, Li and Eilks (2021) stated that although GSCE training were mainly based on theoretical teaching in the classroom and practical work, only a few of them incorporated socio-scientific controversial issues. To conclude, to tackle the issue raised by MacKellar et al. (2020) and others, it is necessary to determine where that progress stands, identify the strengths and weaknesses of GSC training and courses, and recognise which dimensions need to be addressed more intensely in future training and course designs. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the features of the GSCE training programs with the pedagogical content knowledge lens (Shulman, 1987) that describes the components of effective instruction. Finally, as the Chemistry Education Research and Practice Journal's Editorial stated, this review will provide valuable information to GSC educators and researchers regarding what was conducted, what the current trends were, and what should be done in future studies (Graulich et al., 2021).
Burmeister et al. (2012) mentioned four different models that describe the approach to the implementation of SD into chemistry education. In a way, models can be viewed as an orientation to teaching green and sustainable chemistry (OGSC) since they provide an approach, a general way of integrating GSC in chemistry education. Burmeister et al. (2012) stated Model A as the approach that integrates GC principles into chemistry instruction using laboratory experiments. This can be achieved by utilizing micro-scale experiments, replacement of hazardous chemicals with less dangerous ones, use of catalysts in the experiments, etc. Another model suggested by Burmeister et al. (2012) was Model B which integrates GC and sustainability issues with chemistry content in chemistry instruction. This can be accomplished by utilizing effective examples concerning “energy, renewable fuels, industry, and pharmaceuticals” (Kolopajlo, 2017, p. 14). On the other hand, Model C is the approach that employs the integration of GC and sustainability issues with the help of controversial socio-scientific issues (SSI). According to Model D, the goal of the institution is to develop sustainability by including it in all curricula and activities through chemistry education integrated ESD. In this way, students can actively contribute to the sustainable development of their institution (Burmeister et al., 2012; Kolopajlo, 2017).
From the GSCE literature, Andraos and Dicks (2012) listed effective teaching methods as the use of real-world cases, solving quantitative problems with a decision-making approach, and laboratory settings. Although that list works, due to the interdisciplinary nature of GSC, the teaching for GSC should be “interdisciplinary, collaborative, experiential, and potentially transformative” (Chen et al., 2020, p. 2). Rather than a single-method use, a mixture of teaching methods, collaborative and interdisciplinary learning, and problem-based learning were mostly utilized to teach GSC (Chen et al., 2020).
Concerning the how-to assess sub-component, the variables listed above can be assessed by the use of different instruments such as tests, portfolios, surveys, course assignments, quizzes, projects, achievement tests, interviews, and observations (Armstrong et al., 2018) Among the list, some of the instruments provide self-assessment (e.g., surveys). Regarding the self-assessment, von Blottnitz et al. (2015) detected inconsistencies between the self-assessment of learners’ views about their knowledge gain assessed with the survey and the scores obtained from the test administered. von Blottnitz et al. (2015) reported that some learners' self-assessments may often not reflect reality. Therefore, in addition to self-assessment, learners’ demonstrated understanding of the related GSC knowledge and skills should be assessed with other valid instruments (e.g., tests and assignments).
In the 2030 Agenda for SD, sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Table 1) were determined and a target that is “[b]y 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles …” (Goal 4.7: UN, 2015, p. 17) was put forward that again emphasizes the role of education to enhance SD.
SDG 1: No poverty |
SDG 2: Zero hunger |
SDG 3: Good health and well-being |
SDG 4: Quality education |
SDG 5: Gender equality |
SDG 6: Clean water and sanitation |
SDG 7: Affordable and clean energy |
SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth |
SDG 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure |
SDG 10: Reduced inequalities |
SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities |
SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production |
SDG 13: Climate action |
SDG 14: Life below water |
SDG 15: Life on land |
SDG 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions |
SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals |
One of the most important disciplines that can help to provide sustainability is chemistry. The GC, based on 12 principles (Table 2), focuses on lessening or eliminating risks, minimizing resource consumption, and preventing the generation of hazardous substances throughout the design, manufacture, and application stages of chemical products (Anastas and Warner, 1998). Therefore, GC aims to promote sustainability by providing “less waste, with less energy, and more safety” for people and the environment (Zuin et al., 2021, p. 1595). This makes it important and necessary to integrate GC principles into high schools and universities to prepare students for a future built on sustainability (Etzkorn and Ferguson, 2023).
GC principles | Explanation |
---|---|
Waste prevention | It means prioritizing waste prevention over disposing of and managing waste after it has been generated. It includes developing strategies in advance to cut waste at every turn. |
Atom economy | The idea is to reduce waste at the molecular level by incorporating more atoms from each reagent into the final product. |
Less hazardous chemical synthesis | It involves creating chemical reactions and synthetic pathways with a strong focus on safety. It is crucial to be mindful of the potential hazards associated with all substances used during the reaction, including any waste materials. |
Designing safer chemicals | It refers to minimizing toxicity straight through molecular design. The main goal is to predict and assess variables like toxicity, physical characteristics, and environmental outcomes during the design process. |
Safer solvents and auxiliaries | It is related to selecting an environmentally friendly solvent that is accessible. Also, the overall quantity of solvents and auxiliary materials utilized will be reduced, as they contribute to a significant portion of the waste produced. |
Design for energy efficiency | Energy-efficient chemical procedures should be chosen. Avoid energy waste in heating, cooling, vacuum, and pressure situations. |
Use of renewable feedstocks | It refers to using renewable starting materials (feedstock) instead of petroleum-derived materials in chemical processes. |
Reduce derivatives | Derivatives should not be used as they produce waste and require additional reagents. Other green solutions (e.g., using enzymes) should be preferred to fulfil derivatives functions (e.g., protection). |
Catalysis | Emphasizes using catalysis to reduce energy consumption, waste amount, and time, and maximize selectivity rather than stoichiometric reagents. |
Design for degradation | Design of easily harmless degradable chemical products so that they are not toxic and do not remain as waste in the environment |
Real-time pollution prevention | Real-time monitoring of chemical reactions to avoid the production and release of harmful and contaminating substances |
Safer chemistry for accident prevention | Choice and design of safe chemical processes that inherently reduce the likelihood of accidents. Awareness of potential risks and conduction of risk assessment before implementation. |
Principles | Explanation |
---|---|
Minimizing chemical hazards | Minimal or zero hazard of the chemicals used and produced in the chemical production process |
Avoiding regrettable substitutions and alternatives | Development and utilisation of safe and sustainable materials instead of potentially hazardous chemicals |
Sustainable sourcing of resources and feedstocks | Preferring sustainable raw material and feedstock sources in the process |
Advancing sustainability of production processes | Seeking ways to make the production process more sustainable, less wasteful and more efficient through innovation |
Advancing sustainability of products | Achieving more sustainable products with GSC innovation |
Minimize chemical release and pollution | Preventing chemicals from causing pollution through life cycle analysis |
Enabling non-toxic circularity and minimizing waste | Ensuring the non-toxic circular flow of materials and sustainable material use in light of innovative applications |
Maximizing social benefits | Prioritising social benefit, social justice, education and ethical values in the GSC production process |
Protecting workers, consumers, and vulnerable populations | Emphasising the protection of workers, consumers and other vulnerable groups involved in chemical processes |
Developing solutions for sustainability challenges | Relying on innovation to solve social problems related to sustainability |
In another study, Li and Eilks (2021) carried out a systematic review of GSCE papers published in China at the level of secondary and tertiary education. The research published between the years 1997 and 2020 was investigated. For this aim, they searched both international databases and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database. They initially searched the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) by using the keywords “green chemistry education”, “sustainable chemistry education”, “socio-scientific issues” and “in China”. Approximately 20 studies were found after searching international databases, while 1024 studies were selected based on the search for Chinese academic databases. It was found that GSCE in tertiary education is superior to that of secondary level. Examples of GSC instruction at the secondary level are limited. Application of GSCE through SSI is rare, and GSC instruction is mostly based on theoretical teaching in the classroom and practical work. However, Li and Eilks (2021) argued that informal education as an extracurricular activity can also help GSCE. At the tertiary level, various GC experiments, especially in organic chemistry, were emphasized in most of the papers. Though more examples of GSCE instruction exist at the tertiary level, instruction is mostly teacher-centred rather than inquiry-based. Moreover, the GSC courses are usually delivered as elective courses in the undergraduate program. There is no agreement on whether the implementation of GSC as either a stand-alone course or integration of GSC in other chemistry courses is better.
Similarly, Marques et al. (2020) reviewed papers about GC teaching published in the Journal of Chemical Education by searching the journal with the keyword “green chemistry” covering 2019. The search was not restricted to any educational level. 286 papers were determined for the analysis. Afterwards, they made categorizations based on several criteria as “source-problem, paper focus, subjects/area of knowledge, teaching and training target groups, GC contents, type of approach and purpose(s) of the proposal” for the analysis (Marques et al., 2020, p. 1514). Most papers aimed to improve and produce teaching resources for GC, whereas the development of green skills was the second highest-mentioned purpose among studies. The target groups were mostly undergraduate students. Most papers involved the integration of GC in the laboratory, with experiments mostly conducted in the sub-discipline of organic chemistry. Interdisciplinary integration of GC took place in only 8% of the papers. One of the problems this review revealed was that teaching resources were not described in detail. This makes it difficult to apply those teaching activities by other teachers or instructors. Regarding GC content, papers considering the 12 principles of GC directly or indirectly in instruction were relatively high. Among the principles, when compared to other principles, integration of catalysts and metrics in GC instruction was low despite their importance in GC.
Finally, Chen et al. (2020) conducted a review of GC literature. They investigated the integration of GC with other disciplines, levels of knowledge, thinking skills, and instructional methods and strategies used to teach GC to college students in the papers published in the journals indexed in Web of Science between January 2000 and April 2020. In terms of the integration of GC with other disciplines, in half of the articles, there was a three-way integration of GC, such as the integration of GC with natural science, social science, and philosophy among the selected 45 articles. Biotechnology, ecology, physiology, and artificial intelligence were the natural science disciplines that GC was integrated with. On the other hand, a few articles (i.e., 6 out of 45) included the integration of GC with psychology, whereas philosophy was integrated with GC in more than half of the analysed articles. Most articles used a combination of the teaching methods. Teacher presentations, collaborative and interdisciplinary learning, and problem-based learning were commonly used teaching methods in the articles. Half of the articles mentioned teaching with laboratory practices. Concerning levels of thinking skills, though low-level thinking skills such as knowledge and comprehension were cited in most of the articles, high-level thinking skills such as synthesis and evaluation were less frequently indicated. Moreover, systems thinking was found to receive less attention in the articles.
There have been some reviews on GSCE (e.g.Chen et al., 2020; Li and Eilks, 2021); however, there is still a need for further study to provide a broader sense of details on specific characteristics of GSC teaching (Kolopajlo, 2017). Marques et al. (2020) emphasized in their review the lack of evidence of the particularities or characteristics of GSC teaching even if articles were published in journals having the scope of chemistry education. In this review, we examined studies providing training or planning courses on GSCE provided at the tertiary education level with the PCK lens. Owing to the PCK framework, we had a chance to examine the GSC training with all related aspects of the instruction rather than focusing on some. In particular, this review investigates the GSC, learning difficulties, and misconceptions that learners face through GSCE, GC principles, SD goals, instructional strategies, and the assessment methods commonly used by selected papers. Likewise, previous reviews did not focus on related SGDs integrated into GSCE training, students’ misconceptions, and difficulties reported in the GSCE training. Yet another important characteristic of this current review is its comprehensiveness. Li and Eilks (2021) reviewed GSCE papers published in China. Likewise, Marques et al. (2020) reviewed papers about GC teaching published only in the Journal of Chemical Education. On the contrary, this study reviewed studies from all around the world and journals published by two databases that are commonly used by educators, as well as book chapters. Last but not least, this review analysed the most recent GSCE papers, which included emergency remote teaching GSCE practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, remote and online teaching or hybrid teaching practices deserve to be analysed and have the potential to inform the GSCE literature. All those points listed are missing from the previous reviews. Since the last review was conducted in 2020 by Chen et al., almost five years, including the Pandemic era, have passed. The result of this review will inform chemistry teacher educators and GSC researchers about effective instructional practices and implementations for future research on the teaching and learning of GSC.
The research was guided by the following research questions:
What are the general characteristics of GSCE training regarding;
1. Chemistry sub-disciplines in which the training was provided?
a. the target group that received the GSCE training?
b. the type of the course in which training is provided (i.e., stand-alone course versus cross-curricular implementation)
c. type of contexts (e.g., online, hybrid, face-to-face)
d. publication year?
e. the duration of the training?
2. To what extent do GSCE training reflect the characteristics of PCK for GSCE, namely,
a. OGSC
b. knowledge of the curriculum for GSCE,
c. knowledge of learner for GSCE,
d. knowledge of instructional strategy for GSCE and
e. knowledge assessment for GSCE?
Criteria |
---|
C1: Journal articles, books and book chapters are included (proceedings of congresses, conference papers are excluded) |
C2: Peer-reviewed articles are included |
C3: Written in English (non-English records are excluded) |
C4: Research articles, books and book chapters are included (reviews, reports, editorials, theoretical papers, and activity papers are excluded) |
C5: Tertiary education level |
C6: Include training/course with teaching and learning activities (an educational context). |
C7: Include GSCE training/courses of students. |
We then followed the PRISMA 2020 statement's guidelines based on criteria to determine which articles to include in the review. The PRISMA 2020 statement comprises five phases: identification, screening, retrieval, eligibility, and review (Fig. 1).
During the identification step, we conducted a search on the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) databases using the keywords green sustainable chemistry education in July 2024. We acquired a total of 608 publications from the WOS (n = 238) and ERIC (n = 370) databases. We utilized automation tools to apply filters (only peer-reviewed articles and book chapters written in English) based on the kind (C1), review procedure (C2), and language (C3) of the publications. In addition, we segregate the duplicate records inside the databases and keep only one of the duplicates. As a result, we eliminated 416 out of 608 publications based on these criteria. For the next steps, we entered the remaining documents (n = 192) into Microsoft Excel. During the screening step, we scrutinized the titles and abstracts of the documents pertaining to C5. We eliminated 123 documents because they did not meet the criteria of having journal articles, books or book chapters and being at a tertiary education level. During the retrieval phase, we conducted a search for the complete text of 69 publications. We can retrieve the complete text of all the publications. During the eligibility phase, we assess whether the publications contain teaching and learning activities (C6) and student training (C7). 20 publications were excluded, according to C6 and C7. Consequently, a total of 49 publications (47 journal articles and 2 book chapters) remained for additional review during the final phase.
Criteria | Sub-criteria | Source used to set the criteria for review | |
---|---|---|---|
Abbreviations: OGSC: orientation to green and sustainable chemistry teaching; KoC: knowledge of curriculum; KoL: knowledge of learner; KoIS: knowledge of instructional strategy; KoA: knowledge of assessment. | |||
General characteristics | Publication year | Marques et al., 2020 | |
Education level | Tertiary | Li and Eilks, 2021 | |
Chemistry sub-disciplines | Organic, analytic, catalytic, not specified, etc. | Andraos and Dicks, 2012; Li and Eilks, 2021 | |
Target group | College students, professors, research assistants, graduate students, not specified, etc. | Li and Eilks, 2021 | |
Type of implementation | Stand-alone, cross-curricular, not specified | Aubrecht et al., 2019 | |
Type of context | Online, face-to-face, hybrid | ||
Duration | |||
PCK | OSGC | Model A | Burmeister et al. (2012); Goes et al., 2013 |
Model B | |||
Model C | |||
Model D | |||
KoC | GC principles addressed | Chen et al., 2020; Marques et al., 2020 | |
Sustainable development goals | |||
Link to other disciplines’ objectives | Chen et al., 2020; Li and Eilks, 2021 | ||
• Social science | |||
• Other disciplines/fields | |||
• Natural Sciences | |||
• None | |||
KoL | Prerequisite knowledge | Armstrong et al., 2024 | |
Misconceptions | |||
Difficulties | |||
KoIS | Subject-specific strategies | Li and Eilks, 2021 | |
Topic-specific activities | |||
Representations | |||
KoA | What to assess | Armstrong et al., 2024 | |
How to assess |
At first, seven general characteristics were listed. These are the year of the article, education level, chemistry sub-disciplines, target group, type of implementation, type of context, and duration of the training. Chemistry sub-disciplines searched for the discipline in which the GSCE implementation is incorporated (e.g. organic, analytic, catalytic, etc.). Target groups could be any stakeholder of the tertiary education level (college students, professors, research assistants, graduate students, etc.). The type of implementation is composed of stand-alone and cross-curricular implementation. While stand-alone implementation is planned based on GSCE, independent of any chemistry sub-discipline, cross-curricular implementation is planned by integrating GSCE into a branch of chemistry. The type of context category included online face-to-face and hybrid implementation of the training. The duration category focused on the duration of the training implemented. When the researchers started to code the selected articles, they realized that not every article includes a chemistry sub-discipline. Then not specified was added as a sub-category to the chemistry sub-disciplines, type of implementation, and duration categories.
In the second part, the PCK part includes five components of PCK: OST, KoC, KoL, KoIS for GSCE, and KoA. OST has four sub-categories drawn from Burmeister et al. (2012). These are (i) Model A: apply GC principles to science education lab work: the traditional approach (ii) Model B: integrate sustainability with chemistry content: context-based approach (iii) Model C: using controversial current event issues regarding sustainability: (SSI approach) Model D: integrating chemical content knowledge with ESD across an institution.
KoC includes 12 GC principles, 17 SDGs, and relation to other disciplines. Considering the GC principles and SDGs, researchers searched for which principles and goals are emphasized in the training. If there is no emphasis on the principles and goals, the category is coded as not specified. The Link to other disciplines’ objectives category examines whether other disciplines besides chemistry (social science, other disciplines/fields, natural sciences) are focused on during the training. None was added as a category when the researchers started to code the selected articles, as they realized that not every article included a link to other disciplines.
KoL included prerequisite knowledge, misconceptions, and difficulties while learning GSC. The researchers focused on whether the selected articles emphasize prerequisite knowledge to learn GSC, what misconceptions they may hold, and what difficulties they encounter during the training of GSC.
KoIS is examined under three categories: subject-specific strategies (5E, inquiry, PBL, SSI, flipped classroom, project-based, cooperative, argumentation, etc.), topic-specific activities (discussion, case studies, games, concept map, laboratory work, outreach, videos, life-cycle analysis (LCA), media screening, reading articles), and representations (animation, simulation, analogies).
Finally, KoA is considered under two categories: what to assess and how to assess. What the selected articles assess during the training could vary (e.g. affective, cognitive, psychomotor, knowledge levels and thinking skills, psychomotor skills, emotions, attitudes, students’ awareness, etc.). During training, tests, scales, lab reports, reflection papers, etc., could be used for assessment. As a result, the researchers identified the previously indicated as the primary assessment areas and tools, although they remained open to additional codes.
In 31 of these articles, six sub-disciplines of chemistry were specified which were: environmental, physical, organic, general, inorganic and analytic chemistry. In the rest of the articles (n = 18), no sub-discipline of chemistry was specified. Organic chemistry is the course in which GSCE is integrated into the most (n = 15). In 34 papers, college students were selected as the sample. Pre-service chemistry teachers (n = 10) and graduate students (n = 3) were the participants of the studies. In two studies, the sample was comprised of college and graduate students. GSCE training was mostly integrated into a chemistry course (n = 31). In 17 articles, the training was performed in a stand-alone course designed specifically for GSCE. The training was implemented in 38 articles in a face-to-face environment, while in 8 articles, it was online. In 3 studies, hybrid learning environments were created. The duration of the training ranged from a semester-long to 45 minutes.
Model B was used in 12 of the studies. To illustrate, the research of Sikand et al. (2021) does not integrate sustainability principles as content in the course entitled “Sustainability, Energy and the Green Economy”, which aims to promote college students' understanding of sustainability.
On the other hand, only five studies mentioned the use of Model C. To illustrate, Zidny et al. (2021) used Model C by integrating SD in chemistry using SSIs concerning pesticide use. Similarly, in another study by Caceres-Jensen et al. (2021), Model C was employed. A real problem based on “sorption kinetic processes of herbicides in volcanic ash derived soils (VADS) and their potential to pollute groundwater” was used as a context for the socio-scientific chemistry module (p. 1571).
Six studies (i.e., Reyes et al., 2022; Zidny and Eilks, 2022) employed both Model A and B, where both practical work and content helped to offer GSC principles. To illustrate, in the study of Zidny and Eilks (2022), students learned GSC by connecting ethnoscience and chemistry through the natural green pesticide used by the Baduy Tribe in Indonesia. Students were also involved in the experiment by using a kitchen microwave to extract limonene from the pomelo plant, which was a simple, low-cost, and greener extraction method.
On the other hand, in the three studies, no model could be determined since the study did not fit any of the described models. In Loste et al. (2020), GCS principles were explained in a non-chemical open online course. In the “Environmental Sustainability of Organizations in the Circular Economy” course, sustainability, sustainable business, and tools for sustainability such as “Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC)” were discussed (Loste et al., 2020, p. 4).
In the articles with an explicit emphasis on the GC principles, ten articles (e.g., Mooney et al., 2020; Reyes et al., 2022; Shephard, 2021) incorporated all twelve GC principles. For instance, in their training, Reyes et al., (2022) used free online software (DOZN 2.0) inspired by the twelve principles of GC. They categorized all GC principles and characterization methods and incorporated them in the univariate metrics and DOZN 2.0.
Among the 12 GC principles, GC7 (use of renewable feedstocks) was the most emphasized (n = 29). GC6 (design for energy efficiency) is the second (n = 27), followed by GC5 (safer solvents and auxiliaries), which has 26 articles. For instance, Armstrong et al. (2024) designed the General Chemistry Green Curriculum and examined students’ ability to define green chemistry principles and make GC decisions after completing the course. In this curriculum, various modules were used to emphasize different GC principles, one of which is renewable feedstocks. The least emphasized principles were GC8 (reduce derivatives) and GC11 (real-time pollution prevention) with eleven articles.
Regarding SDGs integrated, 18 of the 49 articles explicitly emphasized at least one of the SDGs, and 30 implicitly emphasized them. The number of articles emphasizing any of the 17 SDGs principles is provided in Fig. 4.
Among 17 SDGs, SDG12 (responsible consumption and production) was the most emphasized (n = 39). For instance, Mitarlis et al. (2023) integrated GC principles in chemistry to support undergraduate chemistry students’ achievement of SDGs. In their study, they focused especially on SDG12 and SDG13—goals that are associated with the environment but have an effect on the social life of humans. SDG13 (climate action) follows SDG12 with 13 emphases on articles. SDG1 (no poverty) and SDG5 (gender equality) were the least emphasized articles (n = 1) and are followed by SDG2 (zero hunger), SDG8 (decent work and economic growth), and SDG16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions). and SDG17 (partnerships for the goals) (n = 2).
Finally, regarding the link to other disciplines, ethnoscience and ecology (e.g.Zidny et al., 2021), politics and economy (e.g.Bastin, 2023), economy (e.g.Pernaa et al., 2022), sociology (e.g.Imai et al., 2022), toxicology (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2018) and engineering (e.g.Sanganyado and Nkomo, 2018) were integrated into GSCE training. However, 33 pieces of training did not link the GSC to any other discipline.
On the other hand, 15 studies stated college students' difficulties, while prerequisite knowledge was mentioned in nine studies. For example, de Oliveira et al. (2021) offered training to college students about chemical waste treatment. Results revealed that college students had difficulty relating the quantity of chemical waste to its hazard level. In another study, Karpudewan et al. (2011) integrated green chemistry and sustainable development concepts into a teaching methods course in the teacher education program. They found that pre-service chemistry teachers had some difficulties in understanding sustainable development concepts, but they could understand the use of non-hazardous chemicals in the experiments and their relationship with green chemistry principles better. Zidny et al. (2021) was the only study that focused on all sub-components of KoL since it mentioned learners’ prerequisite knowledge as well as their difficulties and misconceptions. In the study, they explored students’ prior knowledge regarding green pesticides and the use of pesticides at the beginning of the instruction. Students’ difficulties and misconceptions were also mentioned. Students’ misconceptions were listed in a table. The reasons for the misconceptions were also explained in detail. To illustrate, some students had the misconception, namely, “compounds that have a lone pair electron like Cl can dissolve in a polar solvent” since students related the solubility concept with the molecule polarity (Zidny et al., 2021, p. 11).
In another study, Timmer et al. (2018) designed a project based-organic chemistry course through which the undergraduate students were supposed to work on four different ways of the synthesis of the drug 4-methylumbelliferon via a catalytic Pechmann condensation (Fig. 5). Through the project, students reviewed the literature, classified the positive and negative aspects of the synthesis of four protocols in terms of GSC principles, and decided on one of them with specific reasons.
Second, in terms of topic-specific instructional activities, the analysis indicated that most of the articles utilized laboratory work and then discussion (Fig. 6). Regarding the laboratory practices, Pernaa et al. (2022) conducted context-based laboratory activity on ionic liquids through a GC perspective. In another study, Yeerum et al. (2022) conducted a hands-on GC experiment, “colorimetric determination of iron using non-hazardous reagents” (p. 1) online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to laboratory work and discussion, outreach activities were preferred by nine studies. Kovacs et al. (2019) planned a visit to Dow Chemical Company's Toxicology and Environment Research and Consulting department to learn about their studies and projects. Likewise, to relate the theoretical part taught, in Gomes and Zeidler (2023), undergraduate students had a chance to visit a landfill, a water treatment plant, and a recycling cooperative to discuss the topics learned through the course. In another study, Bastin (2023) led students to research and discuss the summarized state environmental bill, and students participated in a trip to the state capitol to share their points of view on environmental issues.
Additionally, case studies were utilized by five studies. For example, Slater et al. (2007) formed “industrial cases studies of green engineered manufacturing processes (p. 313) to teach GC principles. In addition to case studies, the researchers also used video demonstrations and concept maps during GSC training. For instance, de Oliveira et al. (2021) implemented training for 66 university students attending chemistry courses. During the training, students discussed the topics regarding concepts and procedures for the management and treatment of chemical waste as “the recycling process for used soybean oil” (p. 656). Imai et al. (2022) developed teaching material for GSC and used video demonstrations on dyeing systems that do not use water. Different from other studies, Mitarlis et al. (2023) utilized both a think-pair-share type of discussion learning model and group discussions accompanied by a concept map to support SDG achievement through chemistry education.
Yet another topic-specific activity utilized was games. Miller et al. (2019) employed a strategy card game, namely, ‘Green Machine’, for the recycling process of different materials (e.g., metal, food, and glass). Finally, in Fig. 6, the others category included Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), examining related documents, reading articles, and media screening. LCA was employed by three studies (i.e., Imai et al., 2022; Mooney et al., 2020; Reyes et al., 2022). In Mooney et al. (2020), LCA and GC metrics were used to assess the effectiveness of two organic chemistry experiments to produce (E)-stilbene from benzaldehyde. Through the training, the Witting-based experiment and traditional lab method were compared regarding environmental hazards and producing less chemical waste. The reading article was chosen as an activity by Zidny et al. (2021). In Zidny et al. (2021) research, besides video, students were provided with an article, namely “Indigenous bio-pesticide: bio-rational control of pest insects in the Baduy community” (p. 6). The article focused on how the Baduy maintain their culture, preserve nature, and respect nature. Finally, Bastin (2023) utilized examining documents as an assignment during the research and asked students to identify and summarize state bills regarding sustainability. After the examination, the whole class discussed the bill and formed talking points for their outdoor class trip.
Finally, no study provided information on the use of representation (simulations, analogies, or animations).
Analysis showed that the most focused variable is participants’ knowledge of GSCE (n = 38). In addition to that, affective variables and participants’ views about the GSC training are assessed (Fig. 7). The variables assessed by only one study were categorized as others (n = 5), which were summarized in Table 6. To have a more detailed overview of the assessment instruments, Table 6 was formed.
Variables | Assessment instruments |
---|---|
n shows the number of studies. | |
Students' knowledge about GSC | Test (n = 7), lab report (n = 9), scale (n = 1), quiz (n = 4), homework/assignment (n = 6), exam (n = 3), open-ended items (n = 1), questionnaire (n = 7), presentation (n = 2) |
Views about training and activities | Interviews (n = 4), survey (n = 10), questionnaire (n = 3), group presentation (n = 1) |
Affective variables and satisfaction | Questionnaire (n = 3), scale (n = 2), interview (n = 3), survey (n = 3) |
Participants' learning from the project | Reflection paper (n = 1), survey (n = 2) |
Others (n = 5): levels of students' engagement in online discussions | Online discussion forum posts (n = 1) |
Decision factor in students' enrolment | Survey (n = 1) |
Comfort level with teaching some topics | Online survey (n = 1) |
Students' arguments on pesticide uses and application of the chemistry concepts in context of pesticide use | Worksheets (n = 1) |
Knowledge about sustainability tools and strategies | Survey (n = 1) |
Regarding the types of instruments used to assess, it can be argued that highly different types of instruments were employed (Table 6). To assess the knowledge gained throughout the training, the researchers mostly preferred to assess students’ demonstrated understanding by tests, quizzes, lab reports, and exams. On the contrary, self-assessment of the knowledge was employed by only two studies through questionnaire and scale (i.e., Imai et al., 2022; Zidny and Eilks, 2022). For instance, Zidny and Eilks (2022) used a questionnaire including five Likert-scale items to assess participants’ knowledge regarding Indigenous culture and their “learning about other substances and processes that are adopted from Indigenous science” (p. 6). In some studies, both item types (i.e.), the free and fixed response items were used (i.e., Armstrong et al., 2024). They asked for two free response items, one of which asked learners to define GC in their own words. In the other question, two different ways of making cinnamaldehyde were introduced. One is from natural spices, the other is from fossil fuels, producing benzaldehyde, which is a synthetic production. Students were asked to answer which of these two diverse ways they would prefer and why. Armstrong et al. (2024) also employed multiple-choice items to assess the atom economy calculation of reactions and means of LD50 of starting materials of the reaction.
In addition to knowledge, affective variables were assessed by the use of questionnaires, scales, and interviews (e.g., Karpudewan et al., 2015; Karpudewan et al., 2012; Oliveira et al., 2021; Yeerum et al., 2022). In a comprehensive study, Karpudewan et al. (2015) aimed to evaluate “the effectiveness of green chemistry in bringing attitudinal, motivation and value change in solving environmental issues” (p. 249). In the study, the New Ecological Paradigm was administered to pre-service teachers to assess environmental attitudes. Moreover, The Motivation Towards Environment Scale and Questionnaire on Environmental Values were utilized to determine how the training changed the participants’ environmental values. Likewise, Karpudewan et al. (2012) examined the environmental value orientation of Malaysian pre-service chemistry teachers and utilized a short version of the Questionnaire on Environmental Values and conducted interviews. At the end of the lab-based training, including ten GC activities with discussions on economic and societal aspects, the participants’ environmental value orientations became more ecocentric.
In addition to values, the attitudes related to the management and treatment of chemical waste were assessed with a questionnaire by Oliveira et al. (2021). Likewise, Lab-at-Home (LAH) satisfaction was assessed with the use of questionnaire and focus group discussion by Yeerum et al. (2022). Finally, Josephson et al. (2019) assessed junior chemical engineering students’ attitudes toward green/sustainable chemistry with a four-question survey throughout “greenification” of the Lidocaine synthesis. The comparison of pre- and post-survey showed a positive change in the participants’ attitudes toward green/sustainable chemistry.
Finally, regarding the other variables, Loste et al. (2020) assessed knowledge about sustainability tools and strategies by the use of a survey with two open-ended questions as follows:
Q1. “Indicate your knowledge about the following sustainability tools and strategies: Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC)” (p. 4)
Q2. “Have you used any of the following tools: Energy Efficiency (EE), Environmental Management System (EMS), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Circular Economy (CE), Ecodesign (ED) and Green Chemistry (GC)?” (p. 4)
Different from the other studies, Zidny et al. (2021) aimed to assess learners' arguments on pesticide uses by the use of worksheets on the potential risks of pesticides and different worldviews (modern vs. indigenous culture) on the sustainability issues of pesticides. To conclude, research on GSCE mainly focused on assessing participants' knowledge of GC. Less attention was put on skills (e.g., lab skills, argumentation skills or system thinking) and affective variables.
First, regarding the general characteristics of GSCE, the organic chemistry course stands out as the course in which GSCE is integrated the most. Considering the reaction, catalysts, processes, and products used in the organic chemistry course, the ease of GC integration principles may explain this situation. 17 studies gave GSCE training as a stand-alone course, which is a situation that should be considered for GSC educators. Both findings were reported by previous reviews (e.g., Marques et al., 2020).
Second, the GSCE studies allocated varied levels of importance to certain GC principles and SDGs. When looking at the principles of GC, while GC7 (use of renewable feedstocks) and GC6 (design for energy efficiency) received the most attention, GC3 (less hazardous synthesis) and GC8 (reduce derivatives) received the least emphasis. Mitarlis et al. (2023) proposed that five principles of GC, namely GC1 (waste prevention), GC5 (safer solvents and auxiliaries), GC6 (design for energy efficiency), GC7 (use of renewable feedstocks), and GC12 (safer chemistry for accident prevention), could be incorporated into the chemistry education curriculum, particularly in general chemistry courses. These principles are relevant and consistent with students' learning experiences in basic chemistry classes. The emphasis on GC6 and GC7 may be attributed to the fact that these ideas are more readily incorporated into a chemistry classroom environment. In terms of SDGs, SDG12, which focuses on responsible consumption and production, and SDG13, which focuses on climate action, garnered the highest attention. Conversely, SDG2, which aims to achieve zero hunger, SDG8, which focuses on decent work and economic growth, and SDG16, which aims to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions, drew the least attention. The four SDGs that received the least attention are SDG1 (no poverty), SDG5 (gender equality), SDG9 (promoting industry, innovation, and infrastructure), and SDG17 (partnerships for the goals). SDGs are typically characterized by three fundamental aspects: economic, social, and environmental (UN, 2015; Purvis et al., 2019). Mitarlis et al. (2023) proposed that integration of SDGs related to the environment into chemistry classrooms can be facilitated by ensuring their compatibility with the concepts of GC, specifically GC1, GC5, GC6, GC7, and GC12. SDG12 and SDG13 pertain to the environmental domain, which makes their integration into chemistry lectures straightforward. The possible explanation for the elevated ranking of SDG12 and SDG13, as well as the inclusion of GC6 and GC7 in the analysed GSCE studies, might be attributed to this matter. According to Mangukiya and Sklarew (2023), the SDGs can be categorized into different pillars. However, the least-mentioned SDGs (e.g., SDG2, SDG8, and SDG16) and the SDGs that were not mentioned (e.g., SDG1, SDG5, SDG9, and SDG17) were mainly associated with social or economic pillars. An argument could be made that the GSCE training places greater emphasis on the environmental aspects than on the social and economic aspects.
Third, studies providing GSCE mainly utilized Model A, which indicates the integration of GSC by practical work. Previous review studies also confirmed this finding by stating that the application of GSCE was mostly through practical work (Li and Eilks, 2021; Marques et al., 2020). Since Model A is the most straightforward and easily applied model that does not require a change in the curriculum and teaching methods (Burmeister et al., 2012), most of the training studies used this model. However, Model A is not effective for developing students’ skills. In the present study, Model B was employed by few studies and very few training studies used both Models A and B. Eilks and Linkwitz (2022) state that though Model B is useful for teaching chemistry and application of GSC, it is not skill-oriented. When we think of models in terms of their contributions to sustainability, Models C and D have the most promising impact. The present study revealed that Model C was used in only five studies. That means controversial socio-scientific issues (SSIs) were addressed in only five studies for GSCE. Likewise, Li and Eilks (2021) mentioned the rare use of SSIs to teach GSC. College instructors’ limited PCK and experience in SSIs in GSCE may be one of the reasons for the rare use of Model C. Rahayu (2021) stated the lack of guidance for teachers in the amalgamation of SSIs in chemistry education. Another reason may be the limited resources regarding SSIs in GSCE in the related literature. Finally, model D was not used in any studies providing GSCE. This is not surprising since Model D considers the application of GSCE throughout the whole institution as causing the change in the institution according to GSCE. As Eilks and Linkwitz (2022) mentioned, though Model D could provide the greatest physical and chemical contributions to sustainability, the application of Model D is difficult since it requires a practical and interdisciplinary approach. Also, it may not fit with all elements in the existing chemistry curricula. Due to its difficulty in implementation, studies addressing GSCE may not have used this model at all.
Fourth, the present study reviewing GSCE training revealed the inadequacy of knowledge of the learner dimension of PCK. Few studies considered students’ pre-requisite/prior knowledge, and their difficulties and misconceptions related to GSC. However, it is important to consider students’ pre-requisite/prior conceptions, difficulties, and misconceptions in effective instruction since students interpret teachers’ instruction based on these ideas (Bodner, 1986; Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Armstrong et al., 2024). The lack of consideration of students’ ideas in training studies providing GSCE may result from several factors. First, since GSC is a relatively new sub-discipline, instructional strategies for its implementation may have more attention in the related literature. Second, the lack of studies describing students’ difficulties and misconceptions about GSC might have also caused the inadequacy in addressing knowledge of the learner component in training studies regarding GSCE.
Fifth, studies focused on GSCE rarely mentioned subject-specific instructional strategy sub-components for teaching GSC. On the other hand, regarding topic-specific instructional strategies, GSC was generally implemented via lab work and discussion. Some studies used various topic-specific instructional strategies (e.g., outreach, video, case study, and concept map). Furthermore, none of the studies utilized representations such as animations or simulations pertained to GSC through GSCE. Interactive 3D GC animation and simulation could be developed to support learning and teaching GSC. Similarly, Marques et al. (2020) mentioned that in their review, GC courses were generally inserted via laboratory activities, including demonstration and illustrations. Besides instructional strategies, a few articles mentioned Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and GC metrics to assess the effectiveness of various chemical processes. Andraos and Dicks (2012) also emphasized the lack of utilizing LCA and metrics in research on GSCE literature. They also reported that the details regarding the implementation of GSC were not presented in the papers reviewed. This could be interpreted as researchers being aware of the importance of GSCE, but there have been difficulties in implementing it (Marques et al., 2020). In other words, choosing appropriate subject- and topic-specific instructional strategies, representations, and outreach activities may be challenging for instructors. The possible reasons for this situation can be the lack of resources and concrete examples of how to teach GSC. Professional development programs, including GSC experiments, lesson plan examples on GSC, or online resources, could be used to provide support for teacher educators and instructors (Kennedy and Chapman, 2019). Another reason could be the complex nature of GSCE, including several fields such as natural science, engineering, environmental science, and economy, that require different knowledge bases and methodical approaches.
Sixth, it can be argued that studies providing GSCE addressed both dimensions of assessment (i.e., what to assess and how to assess) inadequately. The researchers assessed highly limited variables. While the GSCE can be designed to include different thinking skills (e.g. systematic thinking), to develop different perspectives (e.g., informal reasoning), or to emphasize ethical and moral aspects, the GSCE tended to provide participants with GSC knowledge and then assess that knowledge. Very few studies assessed affective variables and skills (e.g., generating arguments for one process over another). Regarding the instruments used, the GSC knowledge of the participants was measured using traditional tools (e.g., tests, lab reports, questionnaires). As Armstrong et al. (2024) pointed out, the assessment is a component of GSC training that still needs to be developed and worked on. Regarding the possible reasons for the situation reported, it can be claimed that GSC is a young sub-discipline compared to other chemistry sub-disciplines (e.g., organic or analytical chemistry). Considering that the principles of GC were introduced in 1998 by Anastas and Warner, it seems that the GSC educators paid more attention to how this new sub-discipline should be taught, which GC principles should be addressed throughout the training, and which instructional strategies should be utilized. However, how to assess and what to assess aspects have been overlooked. Another possible reason for the ignorance can be the limited existence of valid instruments available (Armstrong et al., 2018, 2024). Considering that the GSCEs are given in different contexts (e.g., online, face-to-face), with different participants (e.g., secondary students, college chemistry students, non-chemistry majors), and integrated into different courses (e.g., organic, analytic, catalytic, environmental chemistry), it is quite understandable that the number of valid and reliable measurement tools in the literature is limited. Finally, neglecting of the assessment dimension is not a problem encountered only in PCK for GSC literature. It has also been observed for other domains, such as PCK for argumentation (McNeill et al., 2016), PCK for nature of science (NOS) (Aydin et al., 2013), and PCK for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) (Aydin-Gunbatar et al., 2020, 2022).
Considering the GC principles and SDGs, there was more emphasis on the ones associated with environmental aspects when compared to the social and economic ones. Therefore, researchers should take the restricted utilization of these SDGs into account and devise methods to include them in chemistry lessons. With the integration of economic and social pillars, a more interdisciplinary GSCE environment should be designed.
In terms of orientation, Model C was rarely used in the studies. As Eilks and Linkwitz (2022) explained, since Model C is effective in enhancing students’ skills such as decision-making skills, communication skills, and systems thinking, we suggest Model C in the GSCE studies. SSIs in GSCE studies will also guide teacher educators, teachers, and curriculum developers. Therefore, we recommend the preparation of lesson plans based on SSI and SSI activities as well as the implementation of these activities through the collaboration of pure scientists working in GSCE and chemistry educators.
Regarding KoL for GCSE, few studies considered learners’ knowledge. However, considering the importance of the learner in designing instruction, we suggest that more studies need to be carried out about students’ prior conceptions, misconceptions, and difficulties in the future. These would help instructors and teachers to recognize the knowledge of learners. Therefore, instruments that assess students’ conceptions, difficulties, and misconceptions of GSC would be valuable for instructors and teacher educators. Our review study reported that only one study took all sub-components of the learner into account. In the future, more studies aiming to detect learners’ difficulties and misconceptions related to GSC topics and processes should be conducted.
Regarding the instructional strategies and methods, GSCE training should get more benefit from the science teaching strategies and methods literature. For example, recently, outdoor science education is studied frequently. As an implication, visits to factories and plants producing various chemicals and interviews with chemists and chemical engineers working in those plants on which of the GC principles are taken into account in production will be useful for students. Additionally, GSC activities and practitioner papers with those activities will enrich the literature regarding how to implement strategies and cover different disciplines in GSCE. To address both implications stated, the cooperation between chemistry educators and green chemistry scientists will be promising. Both groups’ expertise will provide rich activities for GSE training.
Regarding the variables assessed, the participants' reasoning patterns or argument quality can be measured as variables, and in doing so, new rubrics can be prepared in the light of the literature (e.g., Erduran et al., 2004). Second, regarding the instruments utilized to assess the GSC knowledge of the participants, alternative assessment tools such as rubrics include important points (e.g., which reasoning schemes participants use when dealing with different production processes, which claims they make, and with which data they support those claims for preferring a process) should be used. For instance, as Armstrong et al. (2024) asked participants to pick one of the different ways of producing cinnamaldehyde (i.e., one of them is from natural spices and the other from synthetic production starting from fossil fuel), similar type of assessment items can be applied. The existent situation of limited instrument use is quite understandable because the number of valid and reliable measurement tools in the literature is limited. The GSCE literature needs to develop assessment tools at the university level and in the context of organic chemistry, especially considering that most of the training is given in those chemistry courses at the tertiary level. In addition to those, if one of the models put forward in this field is SSI-based (i.e., model C) (Burmeister et al., 2012), the variables focused on, the strategies utilized, and the assessment tools used in the relevant field should be transferred to GSC courses. Hence, to address the problems diagnosed, solid steps should be taken to highlight the assessment aspect of GSCE. Future research should focus on the development of assessment instruments to assess skills and affective variables related to GSC in addition to GSC knowledge.
Criteria | Sub-criteria | Explanation/possible codes | |
---|---|---|---|
General characteristics | Publication year | The number of articles from 2020 to 2024 | |
Level | Tertiary level education | ||
Chemistry sub-disciplines | Organic, analytic, catalytic, not specified, etc. | ||
Target group | College students, professors, research assistants, graduate students, not specified, etc. | ||
Implementation | Stand-alone, cross-curricular, not specified | ||
Context | Online, face-to-face, hybrid | ||
Duration | |||
PCK | OGSC | Model A | Apply GC principles to science education lab work: the traditional approach |
Model B | Integrate sustainability with chemistry content: context-based approach | ||
Model C | Using controversial current event issues regarding sustainability: SSI approach | ||
Model D | Integrating chemical content knowledge with ESD across an institution: | ||
KoC | GC principles addressed | Among the 12 principles of GC | |
Sustainable development goals | Among 17 SD goals | ||
Disciplines included: link to other disciplines’ objectives | |||
Social sciences | |||
Other disciplines/fields | Mathematics, Economy, etc. | ||
Natural Sciences | Chemistry, Ecology, Biology, etc. | ||
None | |||
KoL | Prerequisite knowledge | ||
Misconception/alternative conceptions | |||
Difficulties | |||
KoIS | Subject-specific strategies | 5E, inquiry, PBL, SSI, flipped classroom, project-based, cooperative, argumentation, etc. | |
Topic-specific activities | Discussion, case studies, games, concept map, laboratory work, outreach, videos, life-cycle analysis (LCA), media screening, reading articles, etc. | ||
Representations | Animation, simulation, analogies | ||
KoA | What to assess | Affective, cognitive, psychomotor, knowledge levels and thinking skills, psychomotor skills, emotions, attitudes, students’ awareness, etc. | |
How to assess | Test, scale, lab report, reflection paper, etc. |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |