How green is green chemistry? Exploring the experiences and views of Turkish chemistry teachers on practical activities including green and sustainable chemistry

2.4.1 Green and sustainable chemistry survey (GSC)

The GSC survey, which was the first data source in this study, consists of three sections: 1) Demographic data, 2) Chemistry practical activities, and 3) GSC practical activities. ⁶¹

In the demographic data section, there are multiple-choice questions about graduate degrees, years of experience as a chemistry teacher, and subjects currently taught. In the Chemistry Practical Activities section, there are two survey questions and two open-ended questions. It is asked about the typical chemistry class and the importance of each of the factors in the choice of chemistry practical activities in class. Open-ended questions ask what factors are important in choosing practical activities and what factors prevent practical chemistry activities from being used more often in the classroom. In the last section of the GSC survey, which focuses on Practical Activities, it is asked about the importance of factors and resources of chemistry practical activities related to green chemistry and/or sustainable chemistry explanation of their specific example, additional resources, and challenges about chemistry practical activities or sustainability in their teaching. The full Turkish adaptation of the GSC survey is included in the SF-Table 1 (see Supplementary File).

2.4.2 Focus group interview protocol

The IUPAC GSC Questionnaire Focus Group Interview Protocol was developed in parallel with the GSC Survey. The focus group interviews aimed to obtain more detailed information about the chemistry laboratory practices that chemistry teachers use in their classrooms. The focus group interview protocol consisted of three sections: 1) Introduction, 2) Chemistry Laboratory Practices, 3) GSC Laboratory Practices.

It was designed to elicit the participants’ experiences and views about the laboratory practices they implement, why they choose these practices, and what principles of green chemistry and sustainability they consider in their practical activities. The English and Turkish versions of the questions used in the focus group interviews can be found in SF-Table 2 and SF-Table 3 (see Supplementary File).

3.1.1 Performing chemistry experiments

It was observed that having students conduct an experiment in the laboratory “once per month” was the most common condition for the private (54 %) and science high schools (HS) (50 %), whereas “few times a year” was the most typical condition for the regular (47 %) and religious HS (71 %). Vocational high school teachers responded with a range of answers from more than once per week (17 %) to never (23 %) as seen in Figure 2a.

Figure 2a–c:

Proportion of teachers indicating how often they typically undertake a particular activity in their chemistry, for each school type. a: Have the students perform a chemistry experiment, b: Demonstrate a chemical experiment in front of a class, c: Have the students interact with a computer simulation of a chemical process.

Therefore, it was observed that the chemistry teachers working at private and science high schools were more inclined to have the students conduct experiments more frequently than the ones at other types of schools. This situation was also observed during the focus group interviews. The chemistry teachers working at private schools explained their frequency of having students conduct experiments in the laboratory, as follows:

In 9th and 10th grades, much more laboratory and activity-based work can be integrated into the lesson, it works very well with these students. (Selecting the type of the practical activity, Teacher from private HS)

If a precise work is not required, I generally try to use daily life materials. For example, while discussing gas laws, the pressure-volume relationship, in the 9th graders, we were able to use the marshmallow experiment and we saw that the students were able to achieve the outcomes. (Strategy of using chemistry experiments, Teacher from a private HS)

3.1.2 Performing chemistry demonstrations

Due to some of these challenges that the teachers face, they prefer to demonstrate the experiment in front of the class instead of having students perform practical activities. It was observed this was a more typical activity for science and private high school teachers answered that they demonstrate a chemical experiment in front of the class either around “once per month” (43 %, each) or even more frequently, “once per week” (43 % and 41 %, respectively). Most of the teachers working at religious (56 %) and regular HS (42 %) responded that they demonstrate a chemical experiment in front of the class mostly “a few times per year”. In addition, vocational high school teachers responded with a wide range of answers from “once per week” (28 %) to “never” (7 %) (see Figure 2b). In the focus group interviews, the reasons for performing such a demonstration were closely related with the reasons for not being able to have students perform an experiment. The following quotations taken from the focus group interviews convey the experiences and reasons of chemistry teachers regarding performing the in-class demonstrations.

There was only 70 centimeters of space for each student. I had to do the titration as a demonstration to show them. (Lack of infrastructure, Teacher from regular high school HS)

We do this more depending on the content of the topics and the context of the class. For instance, in the 10th grade, I usually ask one student to prepare a mixture and show it to the [class]. (Classroom management, Teacher from regular HS)

3.1.3 Utilizing computer simulations

Despite the underpinning role of practical activities in learning chemistry, some teachers might prefer utilizing computer simulations depicting a chemical process at the submicroscopic level. Therefore, in the GSC survey chemistry teachers were also asked to rate their frequency of using simulations while teaching chemical phenomena. Another common practical activity is to have students interact with a computer simulation. This activity seemed to be commonly implemented by the science high school teachers and private high school teachers who responded that they had students work with a computer simulation of a chemical process mostly either about “once a week” (36 % for each) or about “once a month” (43 % and 28 %, respectively). In contrast to the aforementioned groups, the majority of regular high school chemistry teachers reported that their students engage with a computer simulation of a chemical process on a weekly basis (30 %) or monthly basis (21 %). While vocational high school teachers responded that they provided students with a computer simulation of a chemical process mostly around “once per month” (39 %), religious high school teachers mostly performed it “a few times a year” (35 %) (see Figure 2c). In focus group interviews, the experiences of teachers in implementing simulations seemed to include their reasons for selecting simulations or their strategies of using them, as seen in SF-Figure 1 (see Supplementary File). The following quotations, extracted from the focus group interviews, articulate the experiences of chemistry teachers considering the utilization of computer simulations for student engagement.

I use the PhET simulations, but since our laboratory facilities are quite convenient, we give priority to the laboratory. (Prioritizing laboratory over simulations, Teacher from private HS)

We also have shortcomings. I saw that on my own behalf. If we improve ourselves a little bit more, it definitely attracts more interest and attention from the students. (Conditions limiting the use of practical activity, Teacher from religious HS)

Like flipped learning, we share related tasks, which can be animations, simulations or videos of experiments that students can work on. Before the class, they gain awareness about the subject and then we make an introduction to the subject. (Strategy of using simulations – flipped learning, Teacher implementing IB curriculum)

3.1.4 Playing experimental videos

The macroscopic level of chemistry can also be presented by playing an experimental video and some teachers prefer to do so by having students watch it instead of working on it. When the chemistry teachers were asked to rate their frequency of having students watch an experimental video of a chemical reaction or experiment being conducted by someone else, various ratings were observed as seen in Figure 2d. This activity was more common among science high school teachers as the majority of them responded to this activity by stating that they were showing an experimental video about “once a week” (54 %). The chemistry teachers working at vocational, religious, and private high schools typically said they show the videos “once a month” (45 %, 41 % and 40 %, respectively). It was a less commonly preferred activity for the chemistry teachers working at regular high schools as the majority of them show an experimental video “a couple times a year” (33 %) or “once a month” (29 %). When this situation was asked during the focus group interviews, they mostly agreed showing experimental videos as an alternative for conducting experiments in case of limited use of experimental activities. The following quotations of chemistry teachers convey this situation.

In 9th grade, we actually follow the new curriculum. At the beginning of the year, for example, there was the aluminum foil experiment, and of course, the laboratory was not very suitable at that time. We turned on the video of it, and we showed it [in class]. (Selecting the type of the practical activity, Teacher from private HS)

Water and life, the diminishing water in dams, the importance of water, but how can we use a non-toxic tablet in the dishwasher? There are comparative videos of these. I can’t do [these as experiments], but at least I can send a video of it. (Strategy of using videos, Teacher from vocational HS)

Figure 2d–f:

Proportion of teachers indicating how often they typically undertake a particular activity in their chemistry, for each school type. d: Show a video of a chemical reaction or experiment conducted by someone else, e: show an animation of a chemical process at the particle/sub-microscopic level, f: provide students with experimental/secondary data to analyse or perform calculations.

3.1.5 Playing particulate-level animations

The observation of a task on a board screen was not confined to the experimental videos; as chemistry teachers also incorporated particulate-level animations of the chemical phenomena in their teaching. In this type of activity, chemistry teachers working at private and science high schools reported that they show animations around “once a week” (33 % and 31 %, respectively). For the teachers working at regular, vocational and religious high schools, the most typical condition of playing a particulate level animation was “a few times a year” (32 %, 39 %, and 53 %, respectively) (see Figure 2e). During the focus group interviews, it was observed that there were various instances that served to underscore the experiences of chemistry teachers in regard to the showing of animations. The following quotations taken from chemistry teachers illustrate these instances.

The new generation of students are doing things very fast. The animation that I occasionally show in the 9th and 10th grades almost completely replaces the laboratory in the 11th grade.” (Selecting the type of the practical activity, Teacher from regular HS)

In our school, we couldn’t use the laboratory because we didn’t have that opportunity, but instead I was continuing with animations, using YouTube and things like that. (Prioritizing animations over laboratory, Teacher from regular HS)

3.1.6 Utilizing experimental data

Another way of engaging students with the experimental work is providing them with the experimental data while letting them examine, analyze and drive conclusions. When the chemistry teachers were asked to rate the frequency of conducting such an activity, it was observed that was not very common, as seen in Figure 2f. The chemistry teachers working at regular, science, and religious high schools (50 %, 46 % and 41 %, respectively) responded that they typically provide students with experimental/secondary data to analyze or perform calculations “a few times a year”. It seemed to be a little bit more common for the teachers working at private and vocational high school teachers (46 % and 28 %, respectively) as they generally responded about “once a month” (46 %). During the focus group interviews, it was observed that this was a more common activity for the teachers implementing IB curriculum.

In fact, this is what we did during the pandemic period: we conducted the experiment in the laboratory, filmed it and presented it to the students in class. We asked them to analyze it at work and write a laboratory report. It does not necessarily have to be an experiment. (Strategy of using experimental data, Teacher implementing IB curriculum)

We are trying to make it a little more permanent or to make concepts that seem very abstract a little more concrete. Experiments are conducted, skills are developed, but on the other hand, how to interpret data, how to record data, how to read a table or how to create a graph, how to draw it, how to interpret the graphs there? These are also expected by IB. (Strategy of using experimental data, Teacher implementing IB curriculum)

All in all, it was observed that chemistry teachers working at different school types were using various activities ranging from engaging students actively involved in conducting experiments to letting them watch the experiments or particulate-level animations on the screen, at different frequencies, depending on the conditions at their schools.

3.2.1 Helping students develop conceptual understanding

In the GSC Survey, the majority of chemistry teachers, regardless of their institution type, expressed a high value of practical activities in fostering conceptual understanding, as seen in Figure 3a. In this sense, while the chemistry teachers in the religious, private and science high schools (65 %, 58 %, and 50 %, respectively) consider conceptual understanding as an “extremely important” factor when selecting chemistry practical activities for their class, the teachers in vocational high school (55 %) and regular high school (45 %) consider it as a “very important” factor. The following quotations from chemistry teachers, obtained during the focus group interviews, convey their views on the importance of practical activities, specifically experiments and simulations, for conceptual understanding.

Chemistry requires manual skills and observation, which is more permanent through experiments. When s/he does it herself/himself and combines it with visuals, s/he actually understands chemical reactions. That’s why it is very important. (Conceptual understanding – Experiments, Teacher from regular HS)

Even if we do an experiment, we need to support it in a simulation to make sense of the interactions. I think augmented reality or web-based simulations increase the student’s learning very much. (Conceptual understanding – Simulations, Teacher from private HS)

3.2.2 Helping students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills

As determined by most of the chemistry teachers, practical activities were also valued for helping students develop higher order thinking skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving. Figure 3b shows the importance of these transferable skills in the selection of chemistry practical activities. In the GSC survey, it was observed that the majority of the chemistry teachers in religious, private, regular, and science high schools (65 %, 61.5 %, 49 %, and 43 %, respectively) were most likely to consider it “extremely important” while the majority of the chemistry teachers (55 %) working at the vocational high school consider it “very important”. The following quotes from chemistry teachers interviewed in the focus groups illustrate how they view the importance of practical activities, specifically of experiments and simulations, for developing transferable skills.

We prefer experiments where they can actually make observations, collect qualitative or quantitative data, draw conclusions from the data and interpret the results critically. (Critical thinking – Experiments, Teacher from private HS)

Simulations can facilitate the student’s ability to better analyze, interpret, discover or connect with something else at the particle level (Critical thinking – Simulations, Teacher from private HS)

3.2.3 Helping students learn experimental techniques of chemistry

Chemistry teachers also rated the factor of learning experimental techniques as another important factor in selecting practical activities. While the teachers working at private, science, and vocational high schools (49 %, 43 %, and 41 %, respectively) considered chemistry-centered student learning factor “extremely important” for students to learn chemistry techniques (such as weighing, titrating, observing, etc.), teachers in regular and religious high schools (55 % and 41 %, respectively) considered it “very important” (see Figure 3c). The following quotations show how the teachers emphasized the importance of learning the experimental techniques of chemistry for students.

The student should at least know how to make a titration, how to keep it running (Laboratory technique, Teacher from regular HS)

Students confuse the burette and the pipette a lot, both are long and thin, one with a stopcock, one without a stopcock. They confuse the round bottom flask with the volumetric flask. I found it very useful in this regard. (Laboratory equipment use, Teacher from regular HS)

3.2.4 Enhancing students’ motivation

One final factor that was found to be also quite important by the chemistry teachers who answered the GSC survey was the motivational aspect. Specifically, the teachers were asked to rate the following factor: “Students like doing practical activities”. Teachers in religious and science high schools (53 %, and 50 %, respectively) consider student enjoyment of doing practical activities as an “extremely important factor” when selecting chemistry practical activities to do with their class. Similarly, teachers in regular, vocational, and private high schools (59 %, 57 %, and 46 %, respectively) consider it as a “very important” factor (see Figure 3d). During the focus group interviews, they explained this factor for different practical activities.

Even very simple experiments could have a huge impact on students’ motivation (Motivation – Laboratory experiments, Teacher from regular HS)

Virtual laboratory applications attract students’ attention more (Motivation – Virtual laboratory, Teacher from regular HS)

3.2.5 Factors preventing teachers conducting laboratory experiments

Even though it is a very well-known fact that having students engaged with chemistry experiments in the laboratory is important in learning chemistry, there are various factors preventing teachers conducting laboratory activities. In the GSC Survey, teachers were asked what factors prevent them from using chemistry practical activities more often in their classes. The chemistry teachers in all school types overwhelmingly reported that lack of time was the factor that prevented them from using chemistry practical activities more frequently in their classrooms (56 % for private, 48 % for vocational, 46 % for science, 44 % both for religious, and regular high schools, as seen in SF-Figure 3, in the Supplementary File). Lack of materials/infrastructure is the second most important barrier for teachers in science, vocational, religious, and regular high schools (31 %, 25 %, 24 %, and 23 %, respectively). While the third most important factor is curriculum to hinder chemistry practical activities for science (23 %), regular (18 %), vocational high schools (12 %), lack of teacher knowledge and practice is the third most important factor for religious high school (19 %). Private high school teachers consider the lack of materials/infrastructure (18 %) and curriculum (18 %) to be equally important preventing factors for chemical activities.

During the focus group interviews, the reasons underlying for not having students perform chemistry experiments were also elaborated. As seen in SF-Figure 3, the categories emerged for these reasons overlapped with the results of the GSC Survey. These factors that prevent teachers from conducting experiments, or the challenges they faced were, were also observed in the interviews, and were categorized as infrastructural, systemic, teacher-based, and student-based challenges. While the category of infrastructural challenges included the subcategories of lack of infrastructure and lack of materials, the category of systemic challenges included the subcategories of lack of time, load of curriculum, and lack of institutional support. In terms of the teacher-based challenges, the subcategories of lack of teachers’ knowledge, and teachers’ workload were observed. Finally, the category of student-based challenges included the subcategories of safety concerns, classroom management, and lack of students’ awareness.

With the exception of teachers implementing the IB curriculum, the chemistry teachers in all school types identified similar challenges regarding underutilized laboratory facilities and effective implementation of practical student activities. The following quotations convey the causes of an insufficiency of practical chemistry laboratory activities as stated by chemistry teachers from various types of schools during the focus group interviews.

There is already an obligation to finish a whole curriculum in one semester. Last year, we could use the laboratory, but I was barely able to cover the topics by the end of the year. (Systemic factors – load of curriculum, Teacher from private HS)

In my school, the area allocated as a laboratory is not physically adequate. If I bring 33 students into the laboratory, they can only stand side by side. (Infrastructural factors – lack of infrastructure, Teacher from regular HS)

Even the smallest experiment requires a preliminary preparation. There are problems of workload (Teacher-based factors – teachers’ workload, Teacher from religious HS)

Although our laboratories are well-equipped, because the students are not interested, we do not have the opportunity to conduct experiments at a very advanced level. (Student-based factors – lack of students’ awareness, Teacher from vocational HS)

3.3.1 Knowledge about GSC activities

This situation was also confirmed in the focus group interviews since most of the teachers stated that they had limited knowledge and experiences regarding the GSC. Even though some teachers said that they learnt these concepts through professional development, online materials, university training, most of them admitted that they rely on their daily experiences or have a lack of knowledge. Sample quotations from the responses given in the focus group interviews, as seen below, mostly conveyed this situation.

We did not receive any training, I mean, I have heard about these things conceptually, but for the first time when I was filling out your questionnaire. (Lack of knowledge, Teacher from science HS)

When I include [green chemistry] in my lessons, I can honestly say that I benefit from my knowledge of being a housewife. For example, I tell the students that tell your mothers at home, they should not buy chemicals for decalcification, they should use lemon powder etc. (Daily life experiences, Teacher from science HS)

3.3.2 Factors affecting choosing GSC activities

Despite the fact that a limited number of chemistry teachers claimed that the chemistry practical activities were linked to GSC, they rated the factors that they would consider when choosing GSC practical activities for their classrooms, as given in SF-Figure 4 (see Supplementary File). More than one third of the teachers at regular, religious and private high schools reported they would consider practical activity in clearly linking to local environmental issues “very important” in linking to local environmental issues, while most of the teachers working at vocational high schools said they considered the sustainability-related activities “extremely important” (SF-Figure 4a). When this issue was discussed during the focus group interviews, one of the chemistry teachers, who was working at a regular high school said she tried to link sustainability concepts to their local context. The following quotation given below is an example for this case.

We are in Büyükçekmece [a district]. We also analyzed Büyükçekmece lake water, we even bought the kits for it [the analysis]. With those kits, for example, we observed the pH of the water, the nitrogen ratio, oxygen ratio, etc. We also did such a study on where Büyükçekmece Lake was heading [environmentally]. (Linking practical activities to local environmental issues, Teacher from science HS)

Another factor for teachers to choose the GSC practical activities, asked in the GSC survey, was whether the students find green chemistry and sustainability issues and topics engaging. While most teachers in private, regular, religious and science high schools considered this factor “very important”, whereas about one third of the vocational high school teachers considered this factor “extremely important” (see SF-Figure 4b). This factor can be seen as consistent with the factors affecting choosing practical activities in general, because as discussed earlier, enhancing students’ motivation was seen as one of the factors that was found to be quite important.

Providing opportunities for students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills while engaging in GSC activities can also be an important factor for chemistry teachers to integrate GSC activities into their teaching. While half of the chemistry teachers at private high schools considered it an “extremely important” factor, most of the chemistry teachers in science, regular, vocational, and religious rated this factor as “very important” (see SF-Figure 4c). This factor was also found to be consistent with the factor for choosing practical activities, in general, since the majority of the teachers in all the school types had found that helping students develop transferable skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving was an important factor for them. So, this factor was clearly seen in selecting the GSC activities.

Seeing the practical activities as a way to introduce green chemistry and sustainability through a hands-on activity can be considered a factor in integrating GSC into the classroom. While most of the chemistry teachers in private, religious, and regular high schools responded that practical are a way to introduce green chemistry and sustainability through a hands-on activity as a “very important” factor, again about one third of the vocational and science high school teachers considered this factor as “extremely” important (see SF-Figure 4d). This factor was also found to be consistent with the reasons for selecting practical activities, in general, as discussed earlier. Because most of the teachers claimed that students could improve their scientific practice skills through hands-on activities. This idea was localized by a science high school teacher during the focus group interviews.

There is no point in the experiment unless each student does the experiment with his/her own hand and proves the subject. (Hands-on activities, Teacher from science HS)

3.3.3 Type of GSC practical activities

Teachers working in different types of schools were found to use different practical activities adopted to incorporate green chemistry or sustainability. When the participants in this study were asked to state what percent of their practical activities relate with GSC, in the GSC survey, it was found that there was variation in implementing GSC practical activities across school types. Specifically, few of the chemistry teachers in science, private and regular high schools stated that they implement activities integrating chemistry and environment (18 %, 15 %, and 10 %, respectively).

In the focus group interviews, as seen in SF-Figure 4, it was observed that chemistry teachers referred to using house-hold materials, activities of recycling and reusing, cased-based discussions, and extracurricular activities for the examples of GSC activities. Only the chemistry teachers implementing IB curriculum referred to the category of producing safer solutions when implementing practical activities. The following quotations convey the examples given by the chemistry teachers working at different types of schools.

The magnesium strip burning experiment is a very cool experiment. Once, after I obtained magnesium oxide, we collected them in porcelain containers. In the next stage, I did activities with phenolphthalein showing acid-base properties. (Recycling and reusing, Teacher from private HS)

I give an example. The Karasu river passes through Erzurum. It originates from Dumlu and Hasangala. I say, when you throw garbage in Karasu, the garbage you throw will go to Erzincan and Erzincan, it will become the Fırat river. Then it will leave the borders of Türkiye and merge with the Tigris. The nature we pollute here will affect people in the Gulf of Bafra. I am not a nationalist person. The world belongs to everyone. (Cased-based discussions, Teacher from regular HS)

In the IB curriculum, we expect students to indicate environmental issues, ethics and safety. Let’s say, they perform the experiments in lower concentrations to cause less harm to the environment. Do they pour products diluted, do they turn it into salt and pour it in? (Producing safer solutions, Teacher implementing IB curriculum)

We use well-plates to work with less chemicals. (Producing safer solutions, Teacher implementing IB curriculum)

3.3.4 Perceptions regarding the adoption of GSC practical activities

During the focus group interviews, chemistry teachers discussed their rationale behind adopting GSC practical activities. The chemistry teachers’ perceptions of green chemistry were grouped into three categories: environment-centered, economy-centered and belief-centered perception. The following quotations convey different perceptions of chemistry teachers for implementing GSC practical activities.

When we do experiments, we release the waste from the lab, it goes right into the sea. There are fish and living things in there. So, let’s collect the chemicals somewhere. (Environment-centered perception, Teacher from regular HS)

You do experiments in all classes. The material is expensive. They don’t give you an endless check. So, we should do experiments on a small scale. (Economy-centered perception, Teacher from regular HS)

My mother was very against waste. She raised us in this way. So, when I use a pH paper by cutting it into thirds. I never dip one pH paper into a solution. It’s a little bit due to belief, I say I will give an account for it. (Belief-centered perception, Teacher from regular HS)

3.3.5 Challenges regarding the implementation of GSC practical activities

In the GSC survey, an open-ended question of what challenges chemistry teachers face when trying to use more practical activities related to GSC was asked. The responses for the challenges determined by the teachers were grouped into four categories: Infrastructural, content-based, teacher-based, and student-based challenges. Under the category of infrastructural challenges, there are three types of challenges noted by the teachers: lack of laboratories, lack of equipment, and crowded classrooms.

Science high school teachers reported that they did not face any infrastructural challenges, while regular high school and vocational high school teachers reported that they encountered all challenges under this category. Religious high schools reported that they faced only the challenge of lack of laboratories, while private high schools reported only lack of equipment challenges under the category of infrastructural challenges.

The results of the analysis revealed three types of challenges in the content-based challenges category: intense curriculum, lack of resources, and lack of time. Chemistry teachers working at the regular and vocational high schools reported facing all three challenges. While the teachers at private high schools reported both intense curriculum and lack of resources, the chemistry teachers at the science high schools reported only lack of time, and those at the religious high schools reported only lack of resources.

Regarding the teacher-based challenges, two types of subcategories of challenges emerged: lack of motivation and lack of knowledge. For this type of challenge, teachers in religious high schools reported facing both of these challenges, while teachers in private high schools reported facing only the lack of motivation of teachers. Teachers in the remaining school types only reported that lack of teacher knowledge was a significant challenge. There is only one challenge under the category of student-based challenges: lack of motivation of students. In this case, only the teachers working at the regular and vocational high schools mentioned a lack of students’ motivation as a challenge.

During the focus group interviews, most of the chemistry teachers had said they had lack of knowledge in GSC, thus they were fully integrating GSC to the experiments conducted in the laboratories. The categories for the challenges emerged from the focus group interviews were infrastructural, content-based and institutional challenges, as seen in SF-Figure 4. Regarding the infrastructural challenge, two subcategories were observed: lack of time and lack of waste management. The subcategory of lack of time was already observed in the GSC survey but the subcategory of lack of waste management was a new issue brought by the chemistry teachers. The following quotation represents how one of the chemistry teachers explained this challenge:

… Then I am thinking, what can we do with the waste after the experiment? Should we pour it down the sink? What happens if we do, what is in the waste? (Infrastructural challenge – lack of waste management, Teacher from vocational HS)

The final two categories emerged from the focus group interviews were content-based and institutional challenges which were similar to the categories observed in the GSC survey. Regarding the content-based challenges, the subcategories lack of time and intense curriculum were stated by the teachers who participated in the focus group interviews. For the category of institutional challenges, only the subcategory emerged was the lack of support which was also observed as a challenge for practical activities, in general.

3.3.6 Needs of chemistry teachers regarding the adoption of GSC practical activities

The final question in the GSC survey asked chemistry teachers what additional resources they need when trying to use more practical activities related to sustainability. Similar to the categorization of the responses given for the challenges determined by the teachers, the needs of the teachers were grouped into three categories: Infrastructural, content-based, and teacher-based. For the category of infrastructural needs, the only subcategory emerged was the need for laboratory equipment. Regarding the content-based needs, four subcategories; namely printed materials, online materials, scientific research, and engaging activities, were observed. Finally, for the teacher-based needs, two subcategories; content knowledge and practical skills to teach GSC were determined.

Teachers from all school types agreed that they needed teacher-based and content-based needs. More specifically, they argued that they needed the necessary content knowledge and practical skills to teach GSC, as well as printed materials to be used while teaching. In addition, teachers from all school types except the religious high school stated that they lacked equipment, therefore they would need the laboratory equipment, which is an infrastructural need. On the other hand, only vocational high school chemistry teachers reported that they would need a variety of content-based needs, which were online materials, cooperation and engaging activities, while only vocational high school and private high school teachers agreed that they need to read and discuss more on scientific research on GSC, its applications and impacts, as another content-based need.

3.3.7 Suggestions of chemistry teachers regarding the adoption of GSC practical activities

In the focus group interviews, chemistry teachers were asked whether they had any suggestions regarding the adoption of the practical activities of GSC. The categories emerged for the suggestions were infrastructural, and teacher-based suggestions. While, for the infrastructural suggestions, few of the chemistry teachers suggested that special kits of GSC can be developed and distributed to the teachers, for the teacher-based suggestions, few of them said they requested having professional development training on GSC. The following quotations convey these suggestions.

For certain experiments in the curriculum, it would be great if kits could be sent to every school, every region of Türkiye. (Infrastructural suggestion, Teacher from religious HS)

We made a request to the Istanbul Provincial Directorate of National Education for inservice training to improve our knowledge and practices. (Teacher-based suggestion, Teacher from science HS)