Empowering Environmental Awareness Through Chemistry: A Science–Technology–Society–Environment-Based Approach to Teaching Acid–Base Reactions in 11th-Grade Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sharing your research in this interesting article. I enjoyed reading your study that investigates "Empowering Environmental Awareness Through Chemistry: A Science–Technology–Society–Environment-Based Approach to Teaching Acid–Base Reactions in ¹¹th-Grade Science"

This manuscript presents a well-structured STSE-based intervention study examining the teaching of acid-base reactions to ¹¹th-grade students in Portugal. The study demonstrates significant conceptual gains and increased environmental awareness through laboratory experiments, interdisciplinary role-play debates, and real world contextualization. The mixed methods design effectively capture both quantitative learning outcomes and qualitative student perspectives. The article successfully links chemistry concepts to pressing global challenges (ocean acidification, acid rain, mining pollution), making science education socially relevant. Qualitative data richly captures student perceptions and motivations, providing insights beyond numerical achievement data.

However, there are some passages where the overall quality of your article could be improved. 

Introduction

Strong theoretical framework: The STSE approach is well-grounded in contemporary science education literature with appropriate references to foundational and recent work.

The connection between environmental education and chemistry education could be made more explicit earlier in the introduction. Currently, these appear as somewhat separate literature streams that converge later. Suggest adding a transitional sentence in the second paragraph explicitly linking these domains.

The objectives are clearly stated but would benefit from reformulation as specific research questions for alignment with standard research reporting.

I suggest the following formulation:

RQ1. To what extent does an STSE approach improve students' conceptual understanding of acid-base reactions compared to their pre-instruction knowledge?

RQ2. How does STSE-based instruction influence students' environmental awareness and sense of civic responsibility?

RQ3. What are students' perceptions and preferences regarding the STSE approach compared to traditional expository teaching?

 

Materials and Methods

The mixed methods design with pre/post-test and semi structured interviews provide comprehensive data that triangulates findings effectively. However, the small sample size (n=17, with only 13 completing both tests and 10 participating in interviews) is a significant limitation that warrants more explicit discussion. Moreover, the study lacks a control group receiving traditional instruction.

It's important to add the pre- and post-test, also the question of the interview as supporting materials.

To describe the classification and coding for "Global Environmental Concern Level" which appears in table 2 in the results section.

Results

The "Global Environmental Concern Level" framework is innovative but appears to lack validation (Table 2). The criteria seem somewhat arbitrary, and it's unclear how this classification scheme was developed or whether it has been tested for reliability. For example: Why does score of 3 with action equal 'Moderate' while a score of 4 without action also equals 'Moderate'?; what constitutes a "relevant justification" versus a "weak justification"? and how was the framework developed based on literature, expert judgment, or empirical testing?

I suggest providing theoretical justification for the classification, citing similar frameworks in environmental education literature, also describing the process for coding justification (with examples) and consider including example student responses that illustrate each level.

The Hake gain is appropriately used as a measure of learning effectiveness, but the absence of inferential statistics limits the strength of claims about "significant" improvements. Without statistical significance testing, readers cannot determine whether observed differences exceed chance variation. I suggest adding inferential statistics to complement descriptive results, reporting p-values and effect sizes or at least justifying why inferential statistics were not used, citing the exploratory nature of the study and small sample size, while avoiding claims of "significant" improvement without statistical backing.

Table 1 should appear before table 2, change the table's order of appearance.

Discussion

I recommend adding a dedicated 'Limitations' subsection in the Discussion or at the end of the Conclusions section.

The author needs to explain in detail how the small sample size may affect generalization of the results. Absence of a control group. Moreover, they need to consider framing findings as exploratory or as a case study that requires replication. This is essential for maintaining scientific rigor and helping readers appropriately interpret the findings.

The study lacks a control group receiving traditional instruction, making it difficult to attribute gains solely to the STSE approach. I suggest to add a paragraph in the Discussion or Limitations section explicitly acknowledging this constraint, to discuss alternative explanations for the observed gains, to explain practical constraints that prevented a control group design, to cite studies that have used quasi-experimental or delayed-treatment designs to address this issue and to consider framing the study as demonstrating the feasibility and promise of STSE approaches while calling for controlled comparisons in future research.

References

References should be according to APA7 style.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a case on improving 11^th grade students’ pro-environmental awareness, chemistry understanding, and motivation in learning acid-base equilibrium based on STSE instruction with a sound result. It has a clear structure. However, there are a few questions I like to draw.

1. In the method section, how many hours for the implementation of this intervention? When was it implemented? It is also better to use other forms of presenting the intervention, such as a table or figure.
2. It is also better to list the original items of the instrument in the appendix or the main text.
3. Why did not this intervention use the control group? How to deal with the progression based their own growth?  
4. For interview, the author did not give the background information of the interviewees, how long for the average time of the interview? It did not clearly show the analysis of interview data, especially in the interrater reliability.
5.  The results and discussion sections are a little bit repeated.
6. Is there any limitation of this research?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the revised version of the paper. The changes improved the overall quality of the paper a lot. Especially the clarifications on the classification and coding for "Global Environmental Concern Level" and the limitation section. However, I still have a few minor remarks before it can be published:

1. Regarding the connection between environmental education and chemistry education, it is still not well connected. I suggest to incorpotrate relevent articles e.g., Kortam N., et al., (2025). Chemistry Teacher International.
2. Authors shoud The authors will need to indicate who wrote the test questions and whether the test was validated? and if so, how? In addition, they will need to explicitly state whether the same test was administered before and after the intervention.

Author Response

Comment 1:
“Regarding the connection between environmental education and chemistry education, it is still not well connected. I suggest to incorporate relevant articles e.g., Kortam N., et al. (2025). Chemistry Teacher International.”

Response 1:
Thank you very much for this helpful comment. We agree that the connection between environmental education and chemistry education required further strengthening. Therefore, we have expanded the Introduction and incorporated recent and relevant literature, including Kortam et al. (2025) and Gunbatar et al. (2025), as suggested.

The new paragraph has been added on page 2, and the revised text has been highlighted in green for clarity.

“The connection between environmental education and chemistry education has been increasingly emphasized in recent literature (Kortam et al., 2025; Gunbatar et al., 2025). Environmental issues provide authentic and socially relevant contexts for learning core chemical concepts and for strengthening students’ scientific literacy. Chemistry teachers frequently report that topics such as air and water pollution, global warming, and energy use naturally bridge disciplinary content with real-world challenges, making chemistry more meaningful and engaging for students (Kortam et al., 2025). Recent systematic reviews of green and sustainable chemistry education indicate that sustainability-oriented curricular approaches can enhance both conceptual understanding and instructional effectiveness (Gunbatar et al., 2025). Integrating environmental perspectives within chemistry instruction not only promotes environmental awareness but also reinforces the relevance and social value of chemistry as a discipline (Kortam et al., 2025). These insights support the pedagogical rationale underlying the present study.”

Additionally, these changes required the inclusion of two new references, which have been added to the reference list:

Gunbatar, S. A., Kiran, B. E., Boz, Y., & Oztay, E. S. (2025). A systematic review of green and sustainable chemistry training research with pedagogical content knowledge framework: Current trends and future directions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00166D

Kortam, N., Basheer, A., Abu Much, R., & Hamed, Y. (2025). High school chemistry teachers’ attitudes toward incorporating environmental education topics into the chemistry curriculum in Israel. Chemistry Teacher International. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2025-0030

 

Comment 2:
“The authors should indicate who wrote the test questions and whether the test was validated, and if so, how. In addition, they need to explicitly state whether the same test was administered before and after the intervention.”

Response 2:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have now clarified the authorship, validation procedures, and use of the instrument. The following revisions were made in Section 2.2. Data Collection and Analysis Instruments:

1. We added an explanation indicating that the test was developed by the first author. To ensure content and face validity, the instrument was reviewed by one experienced chemistry teachers and one researcher in chemical education, who evaluated the clarity, accuracy, and alignment of each item with the intended learning outcomes. Minor revisions were implemented based on their feedback.

2. We explicitly state that the same 13-item instrument was administered at both time points to allow direct comparison of students’ conceptual understanding and environmental awareness before and after the intervention.

The following text was inserted into the manuscript:

“The pre- and post-test instrument was developed by the first author. To ensure content and face validity, the full test was reviewed by two experienced chemistry teachers and one researcher in chemical education, who examined the clarity, scientific accuracy, and alignment of each item with the intended learning outcomes. Minor revisions were made based on their feedback before classroom implementation. The same 13-item instrument was administered as both the pre-test and the post-test, ensuring direct comparability of students’ responses before and after the intervention and allowing the assessment of both chemistry conceptual understanding and environmental awareness.”

We believe these additions address the reviewer’s concern and improve the methodological transparency of the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is much better. If the limitation section could be shorten slightly, it will be much better.

Author Response

Comment 1:

“This version is much better. If the limitation section could be shortened slightly, it will be much better.”

Response 1:

Thank you for your suggestion. The Limitations section has now been shortened to improve readability and conciseness while preserving all essential information.