A systematic review of green and sustainable chemistry training research with pedagogical content knowledge framework: current trends and future directions

Abstract

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.

---

Introduction

Today, we live in an era in which we face many problems, such as the global climate crisis, energy shortage, and contamination of food with harmful chemicals. Our impact on the world with increasing urbanization is at a level that will affect the quality of life of our generation and future generations. At this point, the concept of sustainable development (SD) comes to the stage, which is defined as “a development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN, 1987, paragraph 1). In Agenda 21, education for sustainable development (ESD) was initially introduced as a global political goal (UNCED, 1992). One of the fields where the knowledge, skills, and actions to be acquired for ESD can be taught is chemistry, perhaps one of the most important ones.

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).

Theoretical framework: PCK for GSCE

PCK is a theoretical framework that can be used to elaborate on GSCE training. PCK components proposed by Magnusson et al. (1999), which mostly cited the PCK model in the literature, enlightened the analysis of the GSCE training regarding the important aspects that should be focused on. In this section, each component of PCK was explained in detail, including what each component means for GSCE.

Orientation to teaching GSC (OGSC)

Magnusson et al. (1999) defined science teaching orientation as “knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level” (p. 97). It is an overarching component of PCK that can shape teachers’ other knowledge components (e.g., knowledge of instructional strategy, and assessment). Teachers’ orientation can range from didactic to inquiry. Teachers' goals in teaching science and the characteristics of instruction determine the orientation of a teacher. Moreover, teachers may also hold more than one orientation for teaching science. Orientation toward teaching science can be expressed as “a general way of viewing or conceptualizing science teaching” (Magnusson et al., 1999, p. 97).

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).

Knowledge of curriculum (KoC) for GSCE

Magnusson et al. (1999) described two sub-components of KoC, namely, mandated goals and objectives and specific curricular programs and materials. Many researchers (e.g., Karpudewan et al., 2012; Marques et al., 2020) emphasized the necessity to incorporate GC into existing curricula and teaching materials. Burmeister et al. (2012) suggested that sustainable development goals (SDGs) should be incorporated into the overall chemistry curriculum rather than being offered as a separate topic. Even so, integration of GC and SDGs into chemistry could be possible by implementing them as a stand-alone course (e.g., Haley et al., 2018) or covering it embedded in a chemistry course (e.g., Sheppard, 2020). Additionally, GSC curricula should include links to other disciplines (e.g., economy, politics, law, mathematics, ecology), which means that the training should be interdisciplinary (Chen et al., 2020; Li and Eilks, 2021). Taking all this into account, in this study, KoC is examined under three sub-components: integrating GC principles, SDGs, and relation to other disciplines. Twelve principles of GC proposed by Anastas and Warner (1998) and 17 SDGs proposed by the United Nations (2015) are considered under the KoC.

Knowledge of learner (KoL) for GSCE

According to Magnusson et al. (1999), the KoL component has two sub-components. One is the students’ prerequisite knowledge required to understand the topic, while the other is students’ misconceptions and difficulties while learning the topic. According to Constructivism, a theory of learning that states that students construct their knowledge, students come to classes with some prior knowledge formed through interaction with people, media, formal education, etc. (Bodner, 1986). This knowledge may be incorrect, and students may have misconceptions about the topic. Taking students’ prior knowledge into account during instruction is important since learning is based on the prior knowledge with the new knowledge and learners can interpret the new knowledge based on their existing knowledge (Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Driscoll, 2005). Considering these, KoL for GSCE involves students’ pre-requisite knowledge, difficulties and misconceptions with respect to green chemistry concepts.

Knowledge of instructional strategy (KoIS) for GSCE

According to Magnusson et al. (1999), the KoIS component is comprised of two sub-components, namely, knowledge of subject-specific strategies, and topic-specific strategies. The latter has two sub-components, namely, topics-specific activities (discussion, games, concept map, laboratory work, outreach, videos) and representations (animations, simulations, and analogies). These categories differ in terms of the scope. While subject-specific strategies (i.e., 5E learning cycle, inquiry, conceptual change) are related to teaching science in general, which is the GSC in this study context; topic-specific strategies (i.e., analogy, discussions, experiments, demonstrations, simulations) are related to teaching particular topics (i.e., atom economy, catalysis) in a science domain.

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).

Knowledge of assessment (KoA) for GSCE

According to Magnusson et al. (1999), teachers’ KoA has two sub-components, namely, what to assess (i.e., knowledge gain, science-process skills, problem-solving ability) and how to assess (i.e., tests, concept maps, questionnaires, interviews, drawings of particles). To determine the extent to which learners gain GSC perspective, get feedback regarding the contribution of GSC courses, and specify the weak and strong parts of the GC training, a solid assessment is required.

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).

Literature review

In this section, Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015), GC principles (Anastas and Warner, 1998), and Green Sustainable Chemistry principles (Halpaap, 2021) will be elaborated.

Sustainable development and green chemistry principles

In Agenda 21, education for sustainable development (ESD) was initially introduced as a global political goal (UNCED, 1992). The United Nations entitled the period from 2005 to 2014 as a universal Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD). UNESCO (2005) explained the characteristics of ESD that should aim to develop sustainability in three dimensions, namely, environment, society, and economy. Other characteristics of ESD are that it should be interdisciplinary and involve various instructional strategies that help to improve higher-order thinking skills, and life-long learning by dealing with local and global issues through formal, non-formal, and informal education.

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.

Table 1 SDGs (UN, 2015)

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).

Table 2 Green chemistry (GC) principles and explanations based on Anastas and Warner (1998)

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.

---

Green sustainable chemistry principles

United Nations proposed ten principles of GSC in 2021, which highlighted the reliance on innovations to address sustainability issues with a social perspective (e.g., protecting the workers and vulnerable groups, maximizing social benefit and justice) (Halpaap, 2021) (Table 3). These ten principles are in line with the GC (e.g., waste prevention, less hazardous chemical synthesis, and designing safer chemicals) and the UN's SGD (e.g., sustainable consumption and production, SDG 12).

Table 3 Ten objectives of green and sustainable chemistry proposed by the United Nations based on Halpaap (2021)

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

---

The studies reviewing GSCE training

In the GSCE literature, some studies aim at reviewing the GSCE training (e.g., Andraos and Dicks, 2012; Chen et al., 2020; Li and Eilks, 2021; Marques et al., 2020). In this part, important results reported by the review studies will be summarized. First, Andraos and Dicks (2012) conducted a review of published instructional resources used for GC instruction for undergraduate students. The review revealed that GC was mostly studied in the branch of organic chemistry, however, there were some teaching resources based on other branches of chemistry (e.g., general and analytical chemistry). The need for the availability of teaching resources in other sub-branches of chemistry is emphasized. They also stated that few elective GC courses cannot help to integrate GC into undergraduate chemistry programs. Another finding was the lack of details on experimental procedures in most papers. Similarly, most papers did not mention metrics, life cycle assessments, and energy consumption. Finally, the integration of GC with other non-science disciplines, such as business, ethics, etc., can be useful (Andraos and Dicks, 2012).

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.

The significance and contribution of the study

GSC could be defined as “environmentally and ethically sustainable chemistry” (Etzkorn and Ferguson, 2023, p. 1). Students can draw links between chemistry, other subjects, and daily life through learning the field. It is also challenging for instructors and students, but GSCE should introduce the concepts and principles of through education. For instance, instructors teach the concepts, reactions, and synthesis methods, but they generally ignore teaching greener and sustainable methods or guiding students to make greener choices.

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?

Method

This research is a systematic review that “seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review” (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 95). Systematic reviews do not only provide valuable information on what is currently known in the relevant literature and what should be done based on those. In addition, they shed light on the unknowns that have not been studied much and how those unknowns should be studied. Moreover, the reviews are valuable sources for researchers who are new to the field (Graulich et al., 2021). With that in mind, the current study aimed to review the GSCE training literature regarding general and instructional characteristics, with the PCK lens, of the training or courses organized and provided.

Selecting the research to be reviewed

All steps in the systematic reviews should be clear and systematic (Graulich et al., 2021). To ensure that, we followed the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021). The whole process is described below, step by step. First, we determined the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria before the database search (see Table 4).

Table 4 Selection criteria of the records

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).

Fig. 1 PRISMA review flowchart of the study.

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.

The instrument development for the analysis

We created an instrument to analyse the chosen articles. The instrument consists of two primary components: general characteristics and PCK for GSCE. During the creation of the instrument, we thoroughly examined the GSCE literature and carefully analysed the prior reviews about GSCE. Table 5 lists the literature that informed our process of developing the instrument. In the Appendix, the instrument with criteria, sub-criteria, and example codes were presented.

Table 5 Criteria of the instrument with the related literature that informed us

	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.

Data coding process

After finalizing the instrument development, the researchers randomly selected two articles. Four researchers independently coded the articles by the use of the instrument. Then, they came together and compared their coding. For the first turn, the degree of agreement was 78.9% (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The researchers discussed their disagreements (e.g., GC principles addressed, SDGs addressed) and reached a consensus on the coding. Later, they randomly chose another article and coded it independently. In the second turn, the inter-coder agreement was calculated as 95% degree of agreement, leading them to share the remaining articles and code them individually. Finally, the raw data were entered into Excel for each category of the instrument so that graphs could be drawn to present the findings.

Findings

The findings received from the analysis of the papers will be presented in this part. First, the general characteristics will be provided. Later, the results of PCK for GSCE will be elaborated.

The general characteristics of GSCE articles

The papers with GSCE training were documented in the ERIC or WOS databases between 2007 and 2024. Among 49, articles recorded in the years 2021 and 2023 were the most with eight articles.

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.

OGSC

As seen from Fig. 2, which presents the orientations, most of the studies considered Model A, which indicates the incorporation of green chemistry and sustainability principles by using practical work in instruction. For instance, Cerrillo et al. (2021) investigated “catalytic removal of bromates from water” through lab work that contributes to resolving water pollution problems through the use of catalysis (p. 1726).

Fig. 2 The analysis of GSCE papers regarding the use of models.

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).

KoC for GSCE

As for the curriculum component, the articles were analysed considering 12 GC principles and 17 SD goals. Of the 49 articles, 30 explicitly emphasized at least one of the GC principles, and 16 implicitly emphasized them. Three articles did not highlight any of the GC principles. The number of articles emphasizing any of the 12 GC principles is provided in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 The number of articles emphasizing GC principles.

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.

Fig. 4 The number of articles emphasizing SDGs.

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.

KoL for GSCE

KoL was not considered in most of the studies. Only three studies (i.e., Günter et al., 2017; Zidny et al., 2021; Zidny and Eilks, 2022) mentioned learners’ misconceptions of GSC concepts. To illustrate, Zidny et al. (2021), who explored college students’ use of chemical concepts and arguments for SSIs about pesticide use, found that college students had several misconceptions. To illustrate, one of the misconceptions was that “DDT [Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane] is difficult to decompose because it has a large number of carbon atoms on the chain, which makes its boiling point higher, and requires more energy” (Zidny et al., 2021, p. 11).

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).

KoIS for GSCE

The results for the KoIS component will be presented for subject-specific strategies, topic-specific activities, and representations. First, Fig. 5 summarizes the subject-specific instructional strategies utilized by the GSCE studies. The problem-based (n = 5) and project-based (n = 4) learning strategies were the ones utilized more than other strategies. The subject-specific strategies were utilized either alone or together. For example, Zidny et al. (2021) utilized multiple strategies together, namely, an SSI-based, sustainability-oriented pedagogical approach through the inquiry-based chemistry teaching module. Correspondingly, argumentation was utilized during the study due to “argumentation is considered especially important when it comes to dealing with SSIs in the science classroom” (p. 4). In Mitarlis et al. (2023), cooperative learning and problem-based learning models were applied to provide students with a problem-solving learning experience in the Basic Chemistry Course related to GC Principles.

Fig. 5 Subject-specific instructional strategies used by GSCE training.

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.

Fig. 6 The analysis of studies regarding the use of the topic-specific activities.

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).

KoA for GSCE

Given the fact that GC assessment is at the infant stage when compared to teaching GC (Armstrong et al., 2024), focusing on the variables assessed and the way of assessment of GC would provide valuable insights for the GSCE literature. First, the variables assessed by the researchers were summarized in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 The analysis of the GSCE studies regarding the variables assessed.

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.

Table 6 The variables focused on and the assessment instruments used to assess those variables

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.

Discussion

In this study, the GSCE literature was reviewed through the lens of the PCK framework to elaborate on the aspects of the training provided for the development of participants' GSCE knowledge and competencies as well as the essential characteristics of the training. This systematic review is important in determining the strengths and weaknesses of the current GSCE pieces of training provided. Moreover, it has the potential to inform the related literature of the missing points and ignored aspects of the GSCE training.

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).

Implications

In light of the findings reported, it is time to make some changes in the GSCE training, especially in this era with the heavy emphasis on sustainability and green practices. It is important for future studies that GSC should also be provided through a stand-alone course, in which the entire syllabus is prepared to address GC principles and SDGs. Studies with GSCE training for pre-service chemistry teachers are very limited. It is important to provide quality teacher training to pre-service chemistry teachers who teach GSCE in their future classes. The most important way to teach GSC in schools or out-of-school settings and to provide students (i.e. future generations) with GSC knowledge and awareness is through rich and quality teacher training. In terms of the link to other disciplines, GSCE should be interdisciplinary (Chen et al., 2020). This review revealed that disciplines such as economy, ethnoscience, politics, and ecology should be more linked to the GSCE training. In future studies, the integration of the other fields should be addressed. For example, GSC covers the parts of knowledge and action. Examining how and why college students act against environmental issues or the motives behind their actions or lack of actions should be studied by integrating psychology or other social sciences into their GSCE training. Finally, at times of emergencies and unexpected situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and when technology changes at a dizzying pace, online and hybrid training should be on the agenda of GSC educators. In this review, three papers provided online training. Answers should be sought as to how GSCE can be done through distance education. While answering this question, using a framework such as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) will enlighten GSC educators on how to use technology in GSC teaching.

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.

Limitations

Due to the focus on examining the general characteristics and instructional properties of the GSC training with the PCK lens, this study excluded research that did not provide any GSC training or course. Another limitation is related to the level of education (i.e., tertiary education). The secondary chemistry lesson can be another venue for studying GSC. At the tertiary level, participants' subject matter knowledge of chemistry and their ability to use it to learn GC principles and SDGs, interpret them in reactions or chemical processes, and reasoning for greener practices is richer and deeper than that of high school students. Therefore, it is useful to consider the studies in the literature for these two groups of participants separately.

Data availability

The data is not available for public release.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Appendix

Instrument developed for analysing the GSCE papers with training

	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.

References

1. Anastas P. T. and Warner J. C., (1998), Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press.
2. Andraos J. and Dicks A. P., (2012), Green chemistry teaching in higher education: a review of effective practices, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13(2), 69–79.
3. Armstrong L. B., Irie L. M., Chou K., Rivas M., Douskey M. C. and Baranger A. M., (2024), What's in a word? Student beliefs and understanding about green chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 25(1), 115–132 10.1039/d2rp00270a.
4. Armstrong L. B., Rivas M. C., Douskey M. C. and Baranger A. M., (2018), Teaching students the complexity of green chemistry and assessing growth in attitudes and understanding, Curr. Opin. Green Sustainable Chem., 13, 61–67 DOI:10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.04.003.
5. Aubrecht K. B., Bourgeois M., Brush E. J., MacKellar J. and Wissinger J. E., (2019), Integrating green chemistry in the curriculum: building student skills in systems thinking, safety, and sustainability, J. Chem. Educ., 96(12), 2872–2880.
6. Aydın S., Demirdöğen B., Muslu N. and Hanuscin D. L., (2013), Professional journals as a source of PCK for teaching nature of science: an examination of articles published in the science teacher (TST) (an NSTA Journal), 1995–2010, J. Sci. Teacher Educ., 24(6), 977–997 DOI:10.1007/s10972-013-9345-0.
7. Aydin Gunbatar S., Ekiz Kiran B., Boz Y. and Roehrig G. H., (2022), A closer examination of the STEM characteristics of the STEM activities published in NSTA journals, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 1–26 DOI:10.1080/02635143.2022.2121692.
8. Aydin-Gunbatar S., Ekiz-Kiran B. and Oztay E. S., (2020), Pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for integrated STEM development with LESMeR model, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(4), 1063–1082.
9. Bastin L. D., (2023), Political engagement in organic chemistry: an advocacy project utilizing green and sustainable chemistry, Green Chem. Lett. Rev., 16(1), 2185546 DOI:10.1080/17518253.2023.2185546.
10. Beach E. S., Cui Z. and Anastas P. T., (2009), Green Chemistry: a design framework for sustainability, Energy Environ. Sci., 2(10), 1038–1049 10.1039/b904997p.
11. Bodner G. M., (1986), Constructivism: a theory of knowledge, J. Chem. Educ., 63(10), 873.
12. Brooks M. G. and Brooks J. G., (1999), The courage to be constructivist, Educ. Leadership, 57(3), 18–24.
13. Burmeister M., Rauch F. and Eilks I., (2012), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13(2), 59–68.
14. Cáceres-Jensen L., Rodríguez-Becerra J., Jorquera-Moreno B., Escudey M., Druker-Ibañez S., Hernández-Ramos J. and Aksela M., (2021), Learning reaction kinetics through sustainable chemistry of herbicides: a case study of preservice chemistry teachers’ perceptions of problem-based technology enhanced learning, J. Chem. Educ., 98(5), 1571–1582.
15. Cerrillo J. L., Lopez-Hernandez I. and Palomares A. E., (2021), Catalytic Removal of Bromates from Water: A Hands-On Laboratory Experiment to Solve a Water Pollution Problem through Catalysis, J. Chem. Educ., 98(5), 1726–1731.
16. Chen M., Jeronen E. and Wang A., (2020), What lies behind teaching and learning green chemistry to promote sustainability education? A literature review, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17(21), 7876.
17. de Oliveira D. B., Becker R. W., Sirtori C. and Passos C. G., (2021), Development of environmental education concepts concerning chemical waste management and treatment: the training experience of undergraduate students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(3), 653–661 10.1039/d0rp00170h.
18. Driscoll P. M., (2005), Psychology of learning for instruction, Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
19. Eilks I. and Linkwitz M., (2022), Greening the chemistry curriculum as a contribution to education for sustainable development: When and how to start? Curr. Opin. Green Sustainable Chem., 37, 100662 DOI:10.1016/j.cogsc.2022.100662.
20. Eilks I. and Zuin V. G., (2018), Editorial Overview: Green and Sustainable Chemistry Education (GSCE): Lessons to be learnt for a safer, healthier and fairer world today and tomorrow, Curr. Opin. Green Sustainable Chem., 13, A4–A6 DOI:10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.08.007.
21. Erduran S., Simon S. and Osborne J., (2004), TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse, Sci. Educ., 88(6), 915–933 DOI:10.1002/sce.20012.
22. Etzkorn F. A. and Ferguson J. L., (2023), Integrating Green Chemistry into Chemistry Education, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 62(2), e202209768.
23. Goes L. F., Leal S. H., Corio P. and Fernandez C., (2013), Pedagogical content knowledge aspects of green chemistry of organic chemistry university teachers, ed. Constantinou C. P., Papadouris N. and Hadjigeorgiou A., E-book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research for Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning, European Science Education Research Association, Cyprus.
24. Gomes C. J. and Zuin Zeidler V. G., (2023), Green and Sustainable Chemistry Teacher Education: Experiences from a Brazilian University, Sustainable Chem., 4(3), 272–281.
25. Grant M. J. and Booth A., (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies, Health Inf. Libraries J., 26(2), 91–108 DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
26. Graulich N., Lewis S. E., Kahveci A., Nyachwaya J. M. and Lawrie G. A., (2021), Editorial: writing a review article: what to do with my literature review, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(3), 561–564 10.1039/d1rp90006d.
27. Günter T., Akkuzu N. and Alpat Ş., (2017), Understanding ‘green chemistry ‘and ‘sustainability’: an example of problem-based learning (PBL), Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 35(4), 500–520 DOI:10.1080/02635143.2017.1353964.
28. Haley R. A., Ringo J. M., Hopgood H., Denlinger K. L., Das A. and Waddell D. C., (2018), Graduate student designed and delivered: an upper-level online course for undergraduates in green chemistry and sustainability, J. Chem. Educ., 95(4), 560–569.
29. Halpaap A., (2021), Green and Sustainable Chemistry: Framework Manual. Available Online: https://www.unep.org/resources/toolkits-manuals-and-guides/green-and-sustainable-chemistry-framework-manual (Accessed on 17 September 2024).
30. Imai I., Tsuchiya Y., Ogino K., Ueno K., Tomita H., Makide K. and Tominaga K. I., (2022), Development of teaching material for green and sustainable chemistry in Japan, Chem. Teacher Int., 4(2), 191–202 DOI:10.1515/cti-2021-0029.
31. Josephson P., Nykvist V., Qasim W., Blomkvist B. and Dinér P., (2019), Student-Driven Development of Greener Chemistry in Undergraduate Teaching: Synthesis of Lidocaine Revisited, J. Chem. Educ., 96(7), 1389–1394.
32. Karpudewan M., Hj Ismail Z. and Mohamed N., (2011), Greening a chemistry teaching methods course at the school of educational studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, J. Educ. Sustainable Dev., 5(2), 197–214.
33. Karpudewan M., Ismail Z. and Roth W. M., (2012), Ensuring sustainability of tomorrow through green chemistry integrated with sustainable development concepts (SDCs), Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13(2), 120–127.
34. Karpudewan M., Roth W. M. and Ismail Z., (2015), Education in green chemistry: incorporating green chemistry into chemistry teaching methods courses at the Universiti sains Malaysia, in Zuin V. G. and Mammino L. (ed.), Worldwide Trends in Green Chemistry Education, The Royal Society of Chemistry.
35. Kennedy S. A. and Chapman R. M., (2019), Green chemistry as the inspiration for impactful and inclusive teaching strategies, Integrating Green and Sustainable Chemistry Principles into Education, Elsevier, pp. 1–30.
36. Kolopajlo L., (2017), Green chemistry pedagogy, Phys. Sci. Rev., 2(2), 20160076 DOI:10.1515/psr-2016-0076.
37. Kovacs D. G., Rediske R. R., Marty S., Spencer P. J., Wilson D. and Landenberger B., (2019), Contemporary concepts in toxicology: a novel multi-instructor general education course to enhance green chemistry and biomedical curricula, Green Chem. Lett. Rev., 12(2), 136–146.
38. Li B. and Eilks I., (2021), A systematic review of the green and sustainable chemistry education research literature in mainland China, Sustainable Chem. Pharm., 21, 100446.
39. Loste N., Chinarro D., Gomez M., Roldan E. and Giner B., (2020), Assessing awareness of green chemistry as a tool for advancing sustainability, J. Cleaner Prod., 256, 120392.
40. MacKellar J. J. et al., (2020), Toward a green and sustainable chemistry education road map, J. Chem. Educ., 97.8, 2104–2113.
41. Magnusson S., Krajcik J. and Borko H., (1999), Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching, in GessNewsome J. and Lederman N. G. (ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education, Kluwer, pp. 95–132.
42. Mangukiya R. D. and Sklarew D. M., (2023), Analyzing three pillars of sustainable development goals at sub-national scales within the USA, World Dev. Sustainability, 2, 100058.
43. Marques C. A., Marcelino L. V., Dias É. D., Rüntzel P. L., Souza L. C. A. B. and Machado A., (2020), Green chemistry teaching for sustainability in papers published by the Journal of Chemical Education, Química Nova, 43, 1510–1521.
44. McNeill K. L., González-Howard M., Katsh-Singer R. and Loper S., (2016), Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 53(2), 261–290 DOI:10.1002/tea.21252.
45. Miles M. B. and Huberman A. M., (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage Publications.
46. Miller J. L., Wentzel M. T., Clark J. H. and Hurst G. A., (2019), Green machine: a card game introducing students to systems thinking in green chemistry by strategizing the creation of a recycling plant, J. Chem. Educ., 96(12), 3006–3013.
47. Mitarlis M., Azizah U. and Yonata B., (2023), The integration of green chemistry principles in basic chemistry learning to support achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) through education, J. Technol. Sci. Educ., 13(1), 233–254 DOI:10.3926/jotse.1892.
48. Mooney M., Vreugdenhil A. J. and Shetranjiwalla S., (2020), A toolkit of green chemistry and life-cycle analysis for comparative assessment in undergraduate organic chemistry experiments: synthesis of (E)-Stilbene, J. Chem. Educ., 97(5), 1336–1344.
49. OECD, (2020), Sustainable chemistry. Retrieved May 13, 2024, from https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-management/sustainable-chemistry/.
50. Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D. and Moher D., (2021), The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372(71) DOI:10.1136/bmj.n71.
51. Pernaa J., Kämppi V. and Aksela M., (2022), Supporting the relevance of chemistry education through sustainable ionic liquids context: a research-based design approach, Sustainability, 14, 6220 DOI:10.3390/su14106220.
52. Purvis B., Mao Y. and Robinson, D., (2019), Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins, Sustainability Sci., 14, 681–695 DOI:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.
53. Rahayu S., (2021), Chemistry for life: How to analyze and construct socioscientific cases for chemistry instruction? AIP Conf. Proc., 2330(1), 020012.
54. Reyes K. M., Bruce K. and Shetranjiwalla S., (2022), Green chemistry, life cycle assessment, and systems thinking: an integrated comparative-complementary chemical decision-making approach, J. Chem. Educ., 100(1), 209–220.
55. Sanganyado E. and Nkomo S., (2018), Incorporating sustainability into engineering and chemical education using E-Learning, Educ. Sci., 8(2), 39.
56. Sheppard C., (2020), Integration of laboratory safety and green chemistry: implementation in a sophomore seminar and an advanced organic laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 98(1), 78–83.
57. Shulman L. S., (1987), Knowledge and training: foundations of the new reform, Hardward Educ. Rev., 57, 1–22.
58. Sikand M., Mazzatenta C., Wong K., Bush J. and Socha A. M., (2021), Two Year Community: Sustainability, Energy, and the Green Economy: An Interdisciplinary Course on Environmental Sustainability and Life Cycle Analysis, J. College Sci. Teach., 50(3), 8–16.
59. Slater C. S., Hesketh R. P., Fichana D., Henry J., Flynn A. M. and Abraham M., (2007), Expanding the frontiers for chemical engineers in green engineering education, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 23(2), 309.
60. Timmer B. J., Schaufelberger F., Hammarberg D., Franzén J., Ramström O. and Dinér P., (2018), Simple and effective integration of green chemistry and sustainability education into an existing organic chemistry course, J. Chem. Educ., 95(8), 1301–1306 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00720.
61. UN, (1987), Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development.
62. UN, (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development.
63. UNCED, (1992), Agenda 21.
64. UNESCO, (2005), United nations decade of education for sustainable development (2005–2014): international implementation scheme.
65. von Blottnitz H., Case J. M. and Fraser D. M., (2015), Sustainable development at the core of undergraduate engineering curriculum reform: a new introductory course in chemical engineering, J. Cleaner Prod., 106, 300–307 DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.063.
66. Yeerum C., Issarangkura Na Ayutthaya P., Kesonkan K., Kiwfo K., Suteerapataranon S., Panitsupakamol P. and Grudpan K., (2022), Lab-at-home: hands-on green analytical chemistry laboratory for new normal experimentation, Sustainability, 14, 3314 DOI:10.3390/su14063314.
67. Zidny R. and Eilks I., (2022), Learning about pesticide use adapted from ethnoscience as a contribution to green and sustainable chemistry education, Educ. Sci., 12(4), 227 DOI:10.3390/educsci12040227.
68. Zidny R., Laraswati A. N. and Eilks I., (2021), A case study on students’ application of chemical concepts and use of arguments in teaching on the sustainability-oriented chemistry issue of pesticides use under inclusion of different scientific worldviews, EURASIA J. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 17(7), em1981 DOI:10.29333/ejmste/10979.
69. Zuin V. G., Eilks I., Elschami M. and Kümmerer K., (2021), Education in green chemistry and in sustainable chemistry: perspectives towards sustainability, Green Chem., 23(4), 1594–1608.

---