Sevgi Aydin Gunbatar, Betul Ekiz Kiran, Yezdan Boz and Elif Selcan Oztay
{"title":"基于教学内容知识框架的绿色与可持续化学训练研究:当前趋势与未来方向","authors":"Sevgi Aydin Gunbatar, Betul Ekiz Kiran, Yezdan Boz and Elif Selcan Oztay","doi":"10.1039/D4RP00166D","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >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 (<em>i.e.</em>, 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 (<em>n</em> = 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 (<em>e.g.</em>, cooperative teaching and project-based strategies). Although representations are not used in GSCE, most of the studies included laboratory studies (<em>n</em> = 31). Finally, regarding the assessment, very few studies focused on measuring students' skills (laboratory skills, discussion skills, <em>etc.</em>) 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 (<em>e.g.</em>, rubrics and concept maps) should be utilized regarding the instruments utilized to assess the participants' GSC knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 1","pages":" 34-52"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of green and sustainable chemistry training research with pedagogical content knowledge framework: current trends and future directions\",\"authors\":\"Sevgi Aydin Gunbatar, Betul Ekiz Kiran, Yezdan Boz and Elif Selcan Oztay\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D4RP00166D\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >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 (<em>i.e.</em>, 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 (<em>n</em> = 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 (<em>e.g.</em>, cooperative teaching and project-based strategies). Although representations are not used in GSCE, most of the studies included laboratory studies (<em>n</em> = 31). Finally, regarding the assessment, very few studies focused on measuring students' skills (laboratory skills, discussion skills, <em>etc.</em>) 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 (<em>e.g.</em>, rubrics and concept maps) should be utilized regarding the instruments utilized to assess the participants' GSC knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\" 1\",\"pages\":\" 34-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/rp/d4rp00166d\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/rp/d4rp00166d","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文回顾了2000年至2024年绿色与可持续化学教育(GSCE)在高等教育培训中的研究。Web of Science和ERIC数据库采用标题和摘要综述的方法进行筛选。总共分析了49项研究。分析工具有两个主要部分,即培训的一般特征,这是根据GSCE文献(即化学子学科,实施类型和背景)形成的,以及通过教学内容知识(PCK)结构的视角对培训进行分析,PCK是分析GSCE教学方向,学习者,课程,评估和使用的教学策略的常用框架。结果表明,有机化学(n = 15)是文章中最强调的化学分支。关于学习者部分,研究是不充分的,很少有研究提供关于学生在学习GSC时可能遇到的误解和困难的信息。就课程内容而言,在绿色化学原则中,“使用可再生原料”被强调最多,而“减少衍生物”和“实时污染预防”被强调最少。14项研究使用了特定学科的教学策略(例如,合作教学和基于项目的策略)。虽然在GSCE中没有使用陈述,但大多数研究都包括实验室研究(n = 31)。最后,在评估方面,很少有研究关注于测量学生的技能(实验技能、讨论技能等)和情感变量。根据研究结果,GSCE培训应该更多地受益于科学/化学教学策略方面的文献。此外,对于用于评估参与者的GSC知识的工具,应该使用替代评估工具(例如,规则和概念图)。
A systematic review of green and sustainable chemistry training research with pedagogical content knowledge framework: current trends and future directions
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.