International teacher survey on green and sustainable chemistry (GSC) practical activities: design and implementation

1.1 Practical activities in school science education

The term “practical activity” is used broadly to describe any science activity that involves a degree of hands-on manipulation, typically using equipment associated with scientific practice. These activities are also referred to as practical work, practicals, pracs, labs, laboratory work, experimental work, experiments, and other terms (Gericke et al., 2023). For the purposes of this article, the term “practical activity” refers to any chemical reaction, experiment, or demonstration performed in the classroom or laboratory by students or a teacher. Videos, simulations and animations are not considered practical activities, although some teachers include these when asked about their use of practical activities (Hamlyn et al., 2024). Activities undertaken outside of school such as visits to science centers or universities are not explored here.

Practical activities are ubiquitous in high school science education throughout the world. For well over a century, science educators have held the view that practical work helps students make sense of their scientific world through hands-on experiences (Lunetta et al., 2007). Furthermore, practical activities have been thought to help students understand the nature of science as a discipline and the importance of scientific inquiry as a process for discovering new knowledge (Oliveira & Bonito, 2023). While these views of practical work are largely philosophical, other research cites both cognitive and affective reasons for the inclusion of practical activities in high school science courses. From a cognitive perspective, it has been suggested that practical activities reinforce theoretical concepts by making links to relevant subject matter content, which in turn improves students’ knowledge and achievement in science (Fraser & McRobbie, 1995). Whilst students learn the manual skills required to manipulate scientific equipment (Abrahams & Millar, 2008), practical work is also thought to help students develop academically transferrable critical thinking skills such as hypothesis testing, problem solving and data analysis (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). Abrahams (2009) also suggests that practical activities can increase short term engagement in science learning, which can be a useful means for managing classroom behavior of academically disengaged students. For these reasons and more, many teachers place a high priority on the inclusion of practical activities in their science classes (Bryce & Robertson, 1985).

Nonetheless, there is significant variation among teachers. A recent report explores three different perspectives that teachers have on practical activities and their objectives (Kotuľáková et al., 2024). These are: practical activities are important to gain lasting competencies and skills; practical activities are an addition to chemistry lessons and are too time-consuming and organizationally demanding; pupils learn some competences and skills when they do practical activities by themselves, which is the goal of chemistry education. The third group believes that the logic of systematic inquiry that pupils learn is more important than demonstrations or following a given procedure; pupils learn by doing their own investigation so showing them phenomena is not sufficient. In any group of teachers, it is to be expected that each of these perspectives is represented.

The use of practical activities by teachers in science classrooms has attracted criticism for being an ineffective and inefficient pedagogical approach for achieving the cognitive learning gains associated with learning science (Hodson, 1996). This criticism is predominantly directed at practical activities that are teacher-driven confirmatory exercises which ask students to follow recipe-style instructions (Zion & Mendelovici, 2012). The purpose of these types of practical activities is to validate scientific conceptual knowledge through tried-and-true experiments (Kidman, 2012). Critics argue that these ‘cookbook’ practical activities do not reflect the true work of scientists (McComas, 2005), nor do they challenge students to employ critical thinking skills associated with scientific inquiry (Lunetta et al., 2007). This is because this type of practical work draws students’ attention to the procedural steps of the method and the physical manipulation of laboratory equipment rather than the purpose or conceptual understandings linked to the practical work (Anderson, 2007). Given the lack of cognitive learning gains, some researchers have suggested that practical activities should be abandoned in high school science education (Gott & Duggan, 2007). On the other hand, while recipe-style activities may not be the best approach for students to learn scientific conceptual knowledge, these activities have been shown to help students develop basic skills in equipment operation, observation, data collection, data organization, and making evidence-based inferences (Zion & Mendelovici, 2012).

Furthermore, practical activities designed to enable learners to do science using the practices involved in scientific inquiry have been shown to be effective for cognitive and affective learning gains (Ottander & Grelsson, 2006). A recent systematic review by Gericke et al. (2023) summarized the trends in this area by analyzing 39 papers published between 1996 and 2019 that focused on “laboratory work involving students manipulating and/or observing real objects and collecting empirical data within authentic science learning situations” (p. 12). The review found that guided inquiry is the best choice for practical activities, both for learning science and for learning how to do science. However, given limitations of time and resources, teacher-directed (confirmatory inquiry, or recipe-style) practical activities are more appropriate and accessible than open inquiry (Blanchard et al., 2010, p. 31). While the focus of the 2023 review was “best practice” for practical activities, there is an absence of baseline data regarding the amount of time teachers dedicate to practical activities, the content of their practical activities and the reasons for their choices. The global survey described here aims to fill this gap, specifically for high school chemistry.

1.2 Practical activities in school chemistry education

Chemistry is unique among science disciplines because students, from a young age, work with equipment, instruments, and chemical substances that real-world chemists use. From an epistemological stand point, this justifies the long tradition of incorporating practical activities into chemistry courses whilst highlighting their fundamental importance (Hofstein, 2004; Hofstein & Hugerat, 2021). Although some authors have questioned their value (Hawkes, 2004), this criticism focuses predominantly on the limitations of confirmatory activities for achieving content-based cognitive outcomes, as discussed above. When considering the breadth of approaches and diverse skills students employ during practical work, the consensus is that practical work forms a cornerstone of chemistry education at all levels (Seery, 2020). This hands-on approach to chemistry education leads naturally to active learning, making the discipline’s practical activities a route to deep learning (Taber, 2015).

For both pre-service and in-service chemistry teachers, professional learning programmes routinely feature hands-on practical activities. Not only does this model good pedagogy, but it also helps teachers develop their understanding of the pedagogical purposes of practical activities (Imaduddin & Hidayah, 2019; Karataş, 2016). An important part of pre-service chemistry teacher training is to learn how to safely run practical activities. This includes preparing and handling hazardous chemicals, procedures for chemistry-specific equipment, and being active in ensuring students can conduct experiments safely in the classroom (Richards-Babb et al., 2010). Opportunities to conduct different types of practical activities with school students, as well as working alongside experienced chemistry mentor teachers, were identified as formative experiences for pre-service teachers (Wong et al., 2013). Rather than focusing on classroom basics like safety, professional learning for in-service chemistry teachers often features unfamiliar practical activities including examples aligned to new additions to the curriculum (for example green and sustainable chemistry), making use of new equipment such as digital technology (Guo et al., 2023), or shifting pedagogical thinking through implementing microscale chemistry (Tantayanon et al., 2023; Tesfamariam et al., 2014). Access to training for pre- and in-service teachers is a prerequisite for quality practical activities for their students.

In addition to teacher preparation, access to adequate facilities and equipment can pose a barrier to practical activities in schools. In their study of five secondary schools in Ethiopia, Zengele and Alemayehu (2016) found that limited availability of laboratory space, poor supply of laboratory equipment and reagents, inadequately trained technical staff and teachers, and inadequate management and monitoring of laboratory activities significantly constrained students’ engagement with laboratory-based experiences. Survey findings in Czechia also confirm the importance of teacher training and access to specialized classrooms for practical activities (Rusek et al., 2020). In the United States, the expense of practical activities was found to influence teachers’ choices of which activities to use in their classrooms – although personal factors had a greater impact on the frequency of running practical activities (Boesdorfer & Livermore, 2018). In this project, we aim to reduce barriers to teachers running practical activities, by offering suitable activities that require minimal resources and can be conducted in regular classrooms.

1.3 Green and sustainable chemistry education and practical activities

Historically, innovations in chemistry have provided a range of material solutions to human problems with limited consideration for the environmental implications associated with chemical manufacturing, production, and use (Matlin et al., 2016). Many of these solutions have been accompanied by destructive impacts on the local and global environment, including release of toxic waste. The rise of global environmental awareness in the 1970s and 1980s paralleled major international incidents involving chemical spills including the tragedy in Bhopal, India in 1984 (Joseph et al., 2005) along with chronic environmental issues such as the ozone hole. Over the subsequent decades, as awareness of the negative impacts of waste and by-products of chemical processes increased, chemistry was perceived to have a bad name, although the negativity was at times only a self-perception held by chemists themselves (Fu et al., 2015).

Countering the negative reputation of chemistry, in 1998, Anastas and Warner published Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice which introduced 12 principles of green chemistry, emphasizing the design of chemical products and processes to minimize environmental impact and promote sustainability in research, education and industry (Anastas & Warner, 1998). The field of green chemistry underwent massive expansion in the 2000s and became established as a baseline for best practice in industry, while also being introduced to chemistry education (Cann, 2009). Since the 2015 publication of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the term “Green and Sustainable Chemistry” (GSC) has been introduced to refer to chemistry that satisfies the principles of green chemistry along with the SDGs. In 2020, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published a Framework Manual for Green and Sustainable Chemistry, which provides an overview of scientific, technical and policy aspects for stakeholders to guide their innovation and practice (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021). Most recently, UNEP has published a Manual on Green and Sustainable Chemistry Education, with the stated aim of advancing GSC education and learning in all segments of society (United Nations Environment Programme, 2023). The Manual provides some examples of GSC laboratory experiments and references recent research in the area, but few practical activities appropriate for high school. As part of the present study, practical activities are being submitted by high school teachers along with their own perspectives for public dissemination, which should ensure relevance and suitability.

Among the benefits of GSC education, it has been found that it increases students’ awareness of environmental issues and those that directly impact their lives (Mandler et al., 2012). It also allows students to view chemistry as part of the solution rather than the cause of environmental destruction, giving them tools to address complex global problems (Aubrecht et al., 2019). The perceived importance and promise of green chemistry has the potential to overcome faculty resistance to curricula change (Hutchison, 2019) and many reports suggest approaches to incorporating GSC into general chemistry curricula (Timmer et al., 2018), including GSC education courses incorporating systems thinking (Holme, 2019).

As awareness of its importance has grown, GSC has started to be allocated space in high school chemistry curricula in different jurisdictions across the world. For example, in Australia, the recently updated chemistry curriculum states that students should examine why green chemistry principles are being adopted by manufacturers, and be able to predict how implementing certain “ideas of green chemistry” (minimize unusable waste, energy use) will impact the environment (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2022). In the state of Victoria, the senior secondary curriculum updated in 2023 includes specific reference to individual SDGs and students are assessed on chemical science reasoning behind shifting from a linear to a circular economy (Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, 2022).

Critically, the relative newness of GSC as an emerging knowledge area in chemistry education means that more experienced teachers are unlikely to have had first-hand experience learning about GSC in their own secondary or tertiary education, especially with respect to hands-on practical activities. A recent systematic review of green chemistry-relevant laboratory activities in education settings (Ferk Savec & Mlinarec, 2021) found that GSC practical activities were more often found in tertiary than in secondary or primary settings. The review’s authors also highlight “the lack of research regarding the implementation of green chemistry in pre- and in-service teacher education” (p. 14). Some recent literature examples of in-service teacher training on green chemistry experiments include making polymers from sustainable materials (Wissinger et al., 2020) and making sustainable alternatives to concrete (Delaney et al., 2022). However, meaningful incorporation of GSC content into high school chemistry curricula will not only require teachers to possess content and pedagogical content knowledge of GSC, but also knowledge of practical activities associated with GSC (Kolopajlo, 2017). Currently, high school teachers’ knowledge and use of GSC practical activities appears limited, although so far no study has explored this on a large scale.

1.4 Research objective – a global survey of chemistry teachers

This article describes the initial stages of a global project that aims to fill the gap in the literature described above by first establishing a baseline of current GSC practical activities and then collating resources to increase teacher knowledge and use. This is important for several reasons:

1. To determine what teachers perceive as the major barriers to implementing GSC practical activities, so that researchers can work towards reducing these barriers.

2. To provide a baseline for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.

3. To enable teachers to share their experiences with each other internationally, mediated through the project website.

4. To compare teacher practice across many countries and between global regions, and to investigate changes since prior research from individual countries.

Here, we describe the design and ongoing implementation of a large-scale, multi-country, multi-language survey that sought to discover what teachers are actually doing in their classrooms with respect to practical activities, including GSC practical activities. We discuss the steps and challenges involved in the recruitment of country coordinators, managing a many-language translation and the online survey implementation process. We conclude with some critical reflections from the central project team. Findings from the survey will be presented in subsequent manuscripts. An additional objective of this project was to support and mentor chemistry educators and researchers from countries that are underrepresented in the research literature to publish their country survey results. Here, we introduce and discuss establishing the groundwork for this goal.

2.1 Funding

The IUPAC Committee on Chemical Education (CCE) offers small grants for projects. At the conception of the project, a small team consisting of Seamus Delaney, Madeleine Schultz, Iztok Devetak and Supawan Tantayanon (the “central project team”) successfully applied for this funding to cover some expenses, principally chemical consumables needed for hands-on professional learning on GSC practical activities offered to local teachers attending international chemistry education conferences during 2024–2025. In addition to the funding, the IUPAC grant gave the project legitimacy, which facilitated the first author to access internal university funding for a project officer (Tharani Dissanayake) to coordinate translation and input into the survey platform, and later support data analysis. Through the process of applying for this funding, members of the CCE gave useful feedback on the rationale for the survey and helped focus our survey goals. A major aim was to include as many countries as possible, particularly low and middle-income countries for which little is known about how high school chemistry education is structured.

2.2 Survey design

The initial draft of the survey was informed by older literature describing teachers’ objectives in running practical activities (Abrahams, 2009; Abrahams & Millar, 2008; Taber, 2015). The project team has a major interest in integrating sustainability into chemistry education, including through practical activities (Delaney et al., 2022; Schultz & Delaney, 2021) and this was an opportunity for us to both find out what others are doing and inform others about ways to improve chemistry education through increasing relevance and links to current global issues. Table 1 outlines the sub-sections of the survey as designed. A short description explaining each page is included below and the full set of survey questions is available in the Supplementary Information.

Page 1: Demographic questions of relevance included teacher qualifications, teacher training and years of experience. It is known that in some countries a percentage of teachers find themselves teaching chemistry despite not having a relevant qualification or any specific training to teach chemistry, known as ‘out of field’ teachers (Hobbs & Törner, 2019; Hobbs et al., 2022). We wanted to capture survey responses from ‘out of field’ chemistry teachers, to explore whether the lack of chemistry-specific training impacts their choice and frequency of undertaking practical activities (Rusek et al., 2020). We asked what subjects/year levels the respondent was currently teaching, including the opportunity to list ‘other’ subjects. This information will be particularly useful to explore differences between lower and upper secondary responses, as well as to gather ‘what else’ a modern chemistry teacher teaches.

Page 2: Questions on the frequency, perceived importance of factors and also barriers to undertaking practical activities form the core of the survey. As introduced above, this captures what teachers are actually doing in the classroom, allowing us to explore whether this aligns with scholarly research (Abrahams & Millar, 2008; Taber, 2015) and recent systematic reviews (Gericke et al., 2023). In asking how frequently teachers used certain activities, the type of activities used was of great interest. In some schools, watching a video or simulation of an experimental procedure is considered a practical activity, and we wanted to find out how often students have the opportunity to conduct chemistry practical activities themselves, compared to viewing a teacher demonstration or video, or analyzing experimental data.

Page 3: Before the sub-section on GSC-specific practical activities, we provided definitions, examples and a link to an external website for both green chemistry and sustainable chemistry (Table 2). Whereas green chemistry has been existed for over two decades, and was likely to resonate with chemistry teachers, defining sustainable chemistry as a distinct concept was more difficult. We relied on a consensus definition recently provided by a multisector, international Expert Committee on Sustainable Chemistry (ECOSChem), supported by a substantial literature review (Cannon et al., 2023). Chemistry topic examples provided were agriculture, plastics, pollution and renewable energy (Zuin et al., 2021), and example practical activities included making a bioplastic or biofuel from food stuffs (Knutson et al., 2019; Taverna et al., 2023). We described these concepts as broadly as possible to encourage teachers to include anything that they are doing in this arena, such as relating their practical activities to their local environment or to global environmental or climate issues.

Conscious of how the examples would complement the stated definitions and how they might be interpreted by high school teachers, we made a small modification to the ECOSChem definition of sustainable chemistry, to accentuate the use of finite natural resources. “Resource efficiencies/conservation” was one of the most significant common concepts identified by the thematic analysis of sustainable chemistry definitions (Cannon et al., 2023, p. 2099).

The questions on GSC practical activities were carefully framed to avoid implying that teachers have a ‘knowledge deficit’ regarding GSC education (Burmeister & Eilks, 2013; Ferk Savec & Mlinarec, 2021). For example, while on Page 2 we asked what barriers teachers faced to implementing more practical activities (of any type) in their classrooms, here we asked where they obtain their GSC practical activities (from other teachers, professional development, found online, designed themselves, etc.).

Page 4: As many questions as possible were built as closed (multiple choice or Likert-scale) to reduce the time and effort required to respond. However, a small number of open-ended questions was included so teachers could describe their (GSC) practical activities.

Page 5 allowed country coordinators to include questions specific to their context and is described in detail below.

A design choice was to build all questions (other than the initial consent question) as optional response (i.e., could be left blank). Forced response questions are known to be associated with higher dropout rates and poorer quality of data (Décieux et al., 2015; Sischka et al., 2022; Stieger et al., 2007) and so although this choice may have reduced the completeness of responses received, the increase in validity was considered more important. A small number of country coordinators (less than five) chose to use forced or request response questions, reducing the direct comparability of the data.

The initial survey draft was shared with the first group of country coordinators (>30 people) as well as leadership of the IUPAC CCE for feedback. More than 15 forms of feedback were received, which was consolidated and incorporated. In the feedback, some teacher educators expressed concern that in their country, the questions specific to GSC practical activities were not relevant because teachers do not integrate green or sustainable chemistry in any way because this is not in their curriculum. A small number of teacher educators also questioned why we would ask the teacher respondents whether they trained as a chemistry teacher, believing it was not possible to teach chemistry without the relevant qualification, which may be the case as the ‘out of field’ phenomenon plays out differently across countries (Hobbs & Törner, 2019). Nonetheless, we retained these questions to find out if this was correct and to keep the set of questions consistent across all countries.

In deciding what to include, an overriding goal was to keep the survey as short as possible so that teachers would complete it. This competed with our desire to find out as much as possible from in-service teachers, a group that is not easy to access. The final survey reflects the balance of these competing priorities.

Participants were offered a certificate of completion if they completed the survey in full. This certificate was generated automatically based on a separate survey link available after completing the survey. Their name and school were entered here but not linked to their survey response to maintain anonymity. Finally, respondents were asked if they use a practical activity related to green or sustainable chemistry which they could share with the project. If so, respondents were prompted to send an email to the project team, to be forwarded to their country coordinator. Again, their email address was not linked to their survey response. Collection of these practical activities is ongoing and will be reported later.

2.3 Recruitment of country coordinators and translation

To distribute the survey effectively in many different countries, it was necessary to have at least one local coordinator in each country involved, preferably a chemistry education academic or teacher educator who shared an interest in the objectives of this project. Their roles included translating the survey into local language(s) and modifying the wording of two questions that were tailored for each country:

1. Q2: post-secondary qualifications (multi-answer, including ‘Other (please describe)’ option)

2. Q6a: chemistry subject/year level taught (multi-answer) (Q6a). The follow up Q6b question asked “What other subjects do you teach?” to collect non-chemistry teaching duties.

A preliminary reading across the wording of Q6a in different country surveys shows remarkable diversity in how and when chemistry is taught in high schools worldwide. Country coordinators were encouraged to add up to four questions of their own (on Page 5). There were several reasons for this:

1. To make the survey locally relevant (for example, asking about specific professional learning programs or curriculum initiatives in their country)

2. To make the data useful to country coordinators, who may have had specific research questions that they wanted to answer.

Not all country coordinators choose to include questions in this section. The set of country-specific questions used in 41 countries (as of May 2024) is included in the Supplementary Information. As part of the translation process (outlined below), this list of country-specific questions was shared with incoming country coordinators, and often they chose to re-use questions asked in other countries. Country-specific questions being asked in at least three different countries are summarized in Table 3.

Recruitment of country coordinators used a snowball approach, starting with colleagues known to the central project team. As coordinators were recruited, they were asked if they knew someone who might be interested in a nearby country. In cases where the person was not available or declined, we asked them to suggest others in their country. In some cases, websites of local chemistry education associations were used to find possible coordinators. For some regions it was difficult to identify coordinators. Table 4 lists 54 countries across six continents where, as of writing (May 2024) the survey is either active, or has recently closed, along with their coordinators and the language(s) used. Another 10 countries are currently in the organization or translation phase. A full country list as well as contact details for each country coordinator are included on the project website (https://eschemistry.org/iupac-survey/). The survey will continue into 2025 so readers with contacts in any country not on this list are invited to contact the authors.

Country coordinators chose the language (or languages) for their survey. We encouraged the use of languages predominantly spoken by schoolteachers, but in several countries the country coordinator decided not to translate the survey, either because the language of instruction in high schools is English, or because there are too many local languages to choose just one or two. A specific version of the survey was created for every country. For the 16 countries where the survey was run in English, and other countries with a shared language (such as Spanish, German, etc.), modifications to the wording were chosen to ensure that the vocabulary was relevant to local chemistry teachers (e.g. use of the term “practicals”, “laboratories” or “experiments”).

Where a country coordinator chose to implement the survey in a language other than English, the translation process required several steps:

1. The country coordinator was sent a document formatted as a table, containing the survey questions in English in the first column, space for the translation in the second column and explanatory notes in the third column. This was important to keep the questions in the same order and with the same structure (for example, number of options for multiple choice and Likert-type questions). In this way, the responses can be collated in the survey platform (Qualtrics) without the need to translate back into English (for closed responses).

2. Additional country-specific (Page 5) questions were added at this stage.

3. Upon return of this completed document, the translated questions were inputted into Qualtrics by the project officer. A link to this online version was sent back to the country coordinator for checking and local piloting. We encouraged coordinators to ask local colleagues to test the survey (these responses were deleted before the survey went ‘live’).

4. Any changes or corrections were sent back. In some cases, several rounds of testing and back-and-forth between the country coordinator and the project team were required to achieve a final version.

5. Once the survey was approved, the country was added to the live link in Qualtrics and country coordinators encouraged to distribute the survey link.

We implemented a ‘snowball’ approach for newly involved countries sharing a language for which we had a translation (for instance, Central/South American countries: Spanish, African countries: Portuguese or French). Step 1 then involved sharing each question both in English and the translated language, so the country coordinator could decide to use the translation as much as relevant and only had to modify certain words/subjects/qualifications to the local context.

Several country coordinators chose to offer the survey in more than one language. In those cases, the translations were each entered and checked separately in Qualtrics.

To simplify dissemination, a single link to the online survey was used (https://bit.ly/gschemsurvey, or through the project website), This link presented the potential respondent only the title of the project and the first question (in English):

1. In which country do you currently work as a teacher? [Drop-down list of countries].

Based on the response to this question, the respondent was sent to the corresponding survey. If the respondent chose a country where the survey was available in multiple languages, before being diverted to their survey they received an additional preliminary question (in English):

1. What language do you prefer to take the survey in? [List of languages for country].

2.4 Ethical considerations

An interesting observation was that the human ethics approval process varied significantly across the countries involved:

1. In some countries including Australia, a full low-risk human ethics application and approval from the coordinator’s institution was required before any data collection could take place.

2. In a few cases, this application process required additional approval from the national or state education ministry.

3. Other countries required country coordinators to seek and receive approval from their institution to take part in the research.

4. Many country coordinators, based on their previous experience, knew that an online, anonymous survey did not require institutional ethics approval in their country.

5. In some countries, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, no human ethics approval process for educational research exists.

In accordance with international ethical standards, at the start of all versions of the survey we provided information about IUPAC’s involvement in the project and how respondents’ data will be used (to research how teachers use practical activities in the chemistry classroom). Following this was a consent question, where choosing ‘no’ resulted in being sent to the end of the survey. The survey itself was voluntary and anonymous, and the Qualtrics platform preserves participant anonymity. In this way, the risk of harm to participants was minimized.

A small number of country coordinators requested to collect near-identifiable (state, type of school) or identifiable (school name, email address) information as part of the survey. In these cases, the country coordinator provided written assurance that this was aligned with human ethics standards for their country, and nowhere in the survey (introductory text) did it state that responses were anonymous. When these countries are included in multi-country comparisons these identifiable attributes will be removed.

3.1 Limitations

Implementing an anonymous, online survey conducted in dozens of countries working with local collaborators with diverse backgrounds who are largely volunteering their time to be involved means that it would be unfeasible to undertake certain survey validation steps. Thus, it should be acknowledged that the approach has several limitations.

1. Participant interpretation of wording: Inductive development of survey items (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and validation to evaluate respondents’ interpretation was not feasible. However, this time-consuming practice is rarely undertaken anyway (Wolf et al., 2021). To tackle this issue, as described above we shared the initial wording of survey questions (which were designed based on previous literature (Abrahams & Millar, 2008)) with a large pool of international chemistry education researchers and teacher educators, who provided feedback including rewording certain questions. In some instances, these changes were incorporated into the ‘central’ version of the survey, and in others the changes were made just to the version being used for that country, because the country coordinator was best placed to know how wording or phrasing would be interpreted by local teachers. Note that it is known that individuals’ interpretation of words varies and their recollection of events is imperfect (Wolf et al., 2021), so any survey data is imperfect. We aimed to moderate the impact of these factors by collecting a large data set.

2. Country coordinator interpretation of wording leading to translation issues: Initial feedback from country coordinators also highlighted that in some instances the wording could also be misinterpreted by country coordinators, which was an issue because they would be the ones managing the translation for their country. For instance, in online meetings and across email correspondence, occasionally we deduced that ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable chemistry’ were not always interpreted as distinct terms. To overcome this, we met with coordinators to discuss the definitions of green chemistry and sustainable chemistry used and their wording. However, the translation process did not mandate back translation. Though the validity of back translations has itself been questioned (Behr, 2017), without it we could not check the translations. Online translation programs were used to check suspiciously short or long translations of items, which were then sent back to coordinators for verification. We know that several countries did take steps to validate their own translation (back translation, discussion between several researchers to find consensus), this was not consistent across countries. We acknowledge this as a limitation that we chose to accept to achieve maximum coverage of the survey.

3. Different dissemination and survey coverage: The dissemination approach for the survey varied significantly between countries. In some places, a central email list of high school chemistry teachers was available to country coordinators, enabling them to contact teachers directly. In other countries, country coordinators were reliant on social media platforms such as LinkedIn or local organizations such as science teacher associations to publicize through social media posts or emails to their membership. The population size of interest (school chemistry teachers) also varied dramatically from very small (Cape Verde, Cyprus, Mauritius) to very large countries (India, United States, Indonesia). Thus, different numbers of responses will provide a semblance of representativeness. This is an inherent limitation of the project and there is no feasible way to correct for it. To improve the reliability and transferability of findings (Moll & Nielsen, 2017), and also the comparability of different country sample responses sets, information on the dissemination approach and an estimate of the local chemistry teacher population size was collected from country coordinators. This information will be made publicly available on the project website.

It is worth noting that in spite of the power of modern translation programs, the process of inputting survey questions in other languages, particularly those that do not use Latin characters, was challenging and required a high level of concentration from both the project team and country coordinators. Every translated question transferred into the online survey platform had to be checked to ensure the number and position of survey sub-items (multiple choice questions options, Likert matrix items) was correct, so that when country data sets are collated into a global data set, the correct responses are combined.

Country coordinators are encouraged to perceive their teacher data as their own, with the objective of motivating them to publish their analysis, either individually or in collaboration with others. Particularly those from geographic regions with similar education systems are being encouraged to cooperate in their analysis and presentation. We anticipate different teams using the global data to explore different themes.

Preliminary conclusions from the design and implementation stage of the project are that collaborating on an international project of this scale is very demanding but rewarding. The personal connections forged through emails and online meetings with other chemistry education academics and teacher educators, communicated across language and cultural barriers, is beneficial not only to the central project team but also the country coordinators. This shared motivation and enthusiasm will be necessary as we commence the daunting task of analyzing and disseminating findings, utilizing methodological principles appropriate for a large-scale global survey.