Integrating Clean and Green Initiatives into Chemistry and Physical Science Instruction: A Qualitative Case Study of Teaching Practices of a Teacher

Authors

  • Bernadette Castro NorthEastern College Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64358/sih.v2i3.138

Keywords:

Chemistry, Sustainability, Education

Abstract

Sustainability education has become an essential component of science teaching as schools respond to global environmental challenges and the need to develop environmentally responsible learners. This qualitative case study examined how Clean and Green initiatives were integrated into Chemistry and Physical Science instruction by a secondary school teacher. Anchored in constructivist learning theory and education for sustainable development (ESD) frameworks, the study explored pedagogical strategies that linked scientific concepts to environmental practices and real-life contexts. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, lesson plan analysis, instructional materials review, and documentation of Clean and Green activities, and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings revealed that environmental contextualization enhanced conceptual understanding, learner engagement, and interdisciplinary connections. Teaching practices were characterized by experiential learning, inquiry-based activities, and reflective pedagogy that linked science content with environmental responsibility. Despite challenges related to time constraints and resource limitations, teacher agency and adaptability enabled the sustained integration of sustainability initiatives into science instruction. The study concludes that Clean and Green initiatives can serve as effective pedagogical resources in Chemistry and Physical Science when supported by reflective teaching and institutional support.

References

Azano, A. P., & Stewart, T. T. (2016). Exploring place and practicing justice: Preparing teachers for success in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 31(3), 1–12.

Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson, E. B. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: What it is and why it’s here to stay. Corwin Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Prince, M., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x

Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Environmental Education Research, 16(5–6), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505913

Tilbury, D. (2011). Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. Environmental Education Research, 17(5), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.572540

UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-08