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

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

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.

Response 1: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the connection between environmental education and chemistry education needed to be made more explicit. Therefore, we added a transitional section in the second paragraph of the Introduction (page 2, paragraph 2, lines 49-54) to clearly articulate how these two domains intersect and reinforce each other.

To address this, we introduced the following sentence (marked in red in the revised manuscript):

“[However, environmental education and chemistry education often evolve as parallel strands, despite their shared aim of enabling students to understand and act upon complex environmental problems. To strengthen this connection, several authors argue that chemistry education must explicitly embrace environmental education principles, promoting not only conceptual understanding but also environmentally responsible behaviours.]”

Comment 2:

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?

Response 2:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that explicitly formulating research questions improves the clarity and structure of the manuscript. We revised the final section of the Introduction (page 3, lines 109–116) accordingly.

The following research questions were added (marked in red in the manuscript):

“[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?]”

Comment 3:

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.

Response 3:

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation regarding the limitations associated with the sample size and the absence of a control group. We fully agree that these aspects require explicit acknowledgement and clarification. In response, we have expanded the Limitations section to address both points more directly. However, a meaningful control group would require the same students to experience both instructional approaches, which is impossible in authentic classroom conditions. Using another class as a control would introduce confounding variables (e.g., differences in prior knowledge, cognitive levels, classroom dynamics, or teacher influence), thereby reducing the validity of the comparison. For these reasons, the study focuses instead on within-group pre/post evolution supported by qualitative triangulation.

Comment 4:

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

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. Following the journal’s guidelines for Supplementary Materials, we have prepared and included a separate Word document containing the full set of pre- and post-test questions, as well as the interview questions. This document is now provided as Supplementary Material (Supplementary File S1).

Comment 5:

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

Response 5:

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the description of the classification and coding for the Global Environmental Concern Level required further clarification. We have therefore expanded the explanation in the Results section to explicitly describe how the framework was developed and how each criterion contributes to the final classification.

This revised description can be found on page 5 and 6, lines 199-206, where additional detail has been provided to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the coding process.

“[For the attitudinal questions (Q11 and Q12), a Global Environmental Concern Level was created specifically for this study to allow a multifactor evaluation of students’ attitudinal responses. This classification integrates three dimensions: (i) the self-reported level of concern on a 5-point Likert scale, (ii) whether students indicated an intended or declared pro-environmental action (Yes/No), and (iii) the relevance and quality of their written justification. Based on the combination of these criteria, responses were coded into five categories (Very Low, Low, Moderate, High and Very High) following a decision matrix developed by the authors. Table 1 provides the operational criteria used for each level]”.

Comment 5:

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.

Response 5:

Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the Global Environmental Concern Level might require further clarification to ensure transparency and methodological rigor. The Global Environmental Concern Level was developed specifically for this study but is theoretically informed by established environmental education models that conceptualize environmental awareness as the interaction of cognitive (knowledge-based), affective (emotional/attitudinal), and behavioural (action-oriented) dimensions. Accordingly, the framework integrates:
(i) students’ self-reported concern (affective dimension),
(ii) indication of intended or declared action (behavioural dimension), and
(iii) justification quality, reflecting the cognitive depth of their reasoning.

Levels were assigned by considering how these three indicators interact. For example, a Likert score of 3 (moderate concern) accompanied by a clear intention to act was classified as “Moderate”, while a score of 4 (high concern) without action remains “Moderate” because the absence of behavioural intention limits the level of environmental engagement. Similarly, justification quality differentiates between superficial concern and informed awareness.

“Relevant justifications” were defined as those demonstrating explicit causal connections, scientific references, socio-environmental reasoning, or contextualized examples (e.g. incresed commitment to low carbon mobility, by choosing to walk more frequently). “Weak justifications” included vague or generic statements without explanation (e.g., “it is bad for the environment”).

Comment 6:

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.

Response 6: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the lack of inferential statistical testing should be made explicit and properly justified. In the revised manuscript, we will include a clear explanation in the Limitations section, noting that inferential tests were not applied due to the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the study, which would limit statistical power and the reliability of significance testing.

Comment 7:

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

Response 7:

Thank you for your comment. The error has been corrected.

Comment 8:

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 redes 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.

Response 8:

Thank you very much for this constructive and important suggestion. I agree fully with the reviewer that the limitations of the study deserved a more explicit and detailed discussion. Therefore, a dedicated “Limitations” section has now been added to the manuscript (section 6.).

Comment 9:

References should be according to APA7 style.

Response 9:

Thank you for your comment. The references were updated.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 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.

Response 1:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that additional detail regarding the duration and timeline of the intervention strengthens the methodological clarity of the study. Accordingly, we have now specified on chapter 2. Materials and Methods that the intervention was implemented over two consecutive school weeks, comprising a total of approximately 6 hours per week. We have also clarified the sequence of the pre-test, intervention activities, post-test, and interviews.

“To clarify the structure of the intervention and the distribution of activities across the two-week period, Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the sequence of tasks, including environmental awareness pre- and post-tests, the adapted news reading, the laboratory neutralization activity, the debate, and the final interviews.”]

Comments 2:

It is also better to list the original items of the instrument in the appendix or the main text.

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. Following the journal’s guidelines for Supplementary Materials, we have prepared and included a separate Word document containing the full set of pre- and post-test questions, as well as the interview questions. This document is now provided as Supplementary Material (Supplementary File S1).

Comments 3:

Why did not this intervention use the control group? How to deal with progression based their own growth? 

Response 3:

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation regarding the limitations associated with the sample size and the absence of a control group. We fully agree that these aspects require explicit acknowledgement and clarification. In response, we have expanded the Limitations section to address both points more directly. However, a meaningful control group would require the same students to experience both instructional approaches, which is impossible in authentic classroom conditions. Using another class as a control would introduce confounding variables (e.g., differences in prior knowledge, cognitive levels, classroom dynamics, or teacher influence), thereby reducing the validity of the comparison. For these reasons, the study focuses instead on within-group pre/post evolution supported by qualitative triangulation.

Comments 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.

Response 4:

Thank you for your constructive comment. We agree that additional methodological detail strengthens the transparency and rigor of the qualitative component. We clarify that the interviews were conducted by the first author in a neutral and non-evaluative manner, each interview lasted approximately 10 minutes on average. Interviewees were 11th-grade students (n = 10) from the same class involved in the intervention and all interviews were audio-recorded, fully transcribed, and analyzed using a qualitative thematic analysis conducted by the first author. Because the qualitative analysis was performed exclusively by the author, interrater reliability does not apply to this dataset.

[“A semi-structured interview protocol comprising 13 open-ended questions was administered after the intervention to explore students’ perceptions of the STSE ap-proach, their evaluation of the activities, and their reflections on the value of interdis-ciplinary and contextualized teaching. The interviews were conducted individually by the first author in a neutral, non-evaluative manner and had an average duration of approximately 10 minutes. All interviewees were 11th-grade students (n = 10) from the same class that participated in the intervention. Each interview was audio-recorded and fully transcribed, and the resulting data were examined through qualitative thematic analysis conducted by the first author. Since the qualitative coding was performed solely by the researcher, interrater reliability is not applicable in this context.”]

Comment 5:

The results and discussion sections are a little bit repeated.

Response 6:

Thank you for your comment. The results and discussion have been reviewed, and some redundancies have been detected and removed. Adjustments have been made to these chapters, highlighted in red throughout the text.

Comment 6:

Is there any limitation of this research?

Response 6:

Thanks for your suggestion. A limitation section has been added in section 6 (lines 447-482).