Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Nov 11;19(11):e0312680. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312680

Teacher experiences and understanding of citizen science in Australian classrooms

Larissa Braz Sousa 1,2,*, Ciara Kenneally 1, Yaela Golumbic 1,3, John M Martin 4,5, Christine Preston 6, Peter Rutledge 1,2, Alice Motion 1,2,*
Editor: José Gutiérrez-Pérez7
PMCID: PMC11554122  PMID: 39527562

Abstract

Citizen science represents an important opportunity for school students to make real-world connections with science through context-based learning with the potential to increase their engagement, enjoyment and understanding of science. However, to date, citizen science has not experienced wide uptake in school settings and there is a paucity of information about its implementation in the classroom. Here we present a mixed-method approach investigating teachers’ knowledge and use of citizen science in Australian classrooms. We explored teachers’ experience and perceptions of citizen science, and opportunities and barriers to incorporate citizen science as an educational approach through an online questionnaire. Among the teachers surveyed, 45% (n = 295) had personally participated in citizen science outside of school and 41% (n = 283) had incorporated citizen science projects in classroom lessons. Teachers (45%, n = 295) reported participating in citizen science initiatives multiple times. Also, most projects that teachers were involved in (77%, n = 292) were related to ecological studies, such as species monitoring. Citizen science was reported to be a relatively new approach; used by teachers for less than a year on average. The main challenges included a lack of knowledge, time, confidence, and clarity regarding citizen science project alignment with the Australian curriculum. Additionally, 92% of respondents said they would be more encouraged to use citizen science in classrooms if projects were aligned to the curriculum. Identifying ways to increase teachers’ openness to incorporate citizen science in their classrooms is crucial to its successful widespread, long-term, and meaningful implementation. Encouraging broader participation of teachers in citizen science based on their previous experiences could address their expectations and increase their confidence and feeling of ownership. These research findings suggest that meaningful and applicable citizen science programs could be co-created by addressing resource limitations and curriculum alignment challenges. Implementing solutions to these barriers is likely to contribute to the development of sustainable school-inclusive citizen science projects, with potential to positively impact science education in the long-term.

Introduction

Citizen science encompasses a range of diverse approaches, with applications across many disciplines and contributions by participants from different countries and of all ages, that has been defined as public participation in scientific research [13]. In the past two decades alone, thousands of citizen science projects have engaged at least 6 million participants globally [1,4]. These projects have produced hundreds of publications [1,57] and countless opportunities for education [810], connection with nature [11], and community interaction [9,12]. Citizen science has been explored as a way to improve educational outcomes and contribute to scientific knowledge development [1316].

Educational outcomes are increasingly an aim of citizen science, often with a focus on science education for young people [17,18]. Citizen science projects may prioritise education as an outcome of participation [19]. Although the benefits of school-based citizen science have been explored, limited studies describe citizen science projects designed for schools and assess their benefits for students, teachers, and the entire community [2022]. While some studies report citizen science together with an integrative approach linking science education and environmental education [2325] there is a clear gap in research into citizen science integration into other subjects and disciplines [20,26]. Of the education-based citizen science projects reported in the literature most are contributory, with fewer examples of co-designed projects [27,28].

There are, however, limited examples of citizen science projects that have been specifically designed to integrate pedagogical objectives and approaches, aiming to enhance teaching practices and learning outcomes within educational settings [29,30]. Examples include programs that provide structured teaching resources and adaptable lessons to support schools’ pedagogical practices and curricula [30,31]. Such programs have been especially reported in the fields of environmental science and biodiversity [32,33].

There are several documented benefits for students who participate in citizen science, including physical, emotional, interpersonal, social, and educational [18]. For example, students were found to be more motivated to attend school and enjoyed their classes more after participating in citizen science [34]. This increase in interest and enjoyment at school was mirrored in student attitudes towards science, with citizen science participation maintaining or increasing students’ positive science outlook [35]. Benefits for students were attributed to the core nature of citizen science; where students are active learners involved in scientific research. Furthermore, research has shown that students benefit from contributing to citizen science as they advance their learning of scientific concepts and the scientific enquiry process [18]. This learning can enhance students’ understanding of real world science as they make first-hand contributions to research [21]. Citizen science projects can also provide students with opportunities to develop knowledge and skills in areas outside of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), such as social sciences and humanities [34,3639].

Researchers have explored the impact of citizen science in making scientific knowledge more accessible [40,41]. To do that, citizen science needs to consider approaches that are more empowering and that embrace participants roles beyond data collection to include aspects such as research design, discussions, and implications [42,43]. In order to achieve the best outcomes, citizen science projects collaborating with, or being implemented by schools need to be cognisant of the particular abilities and educational needs of participating teachers and students [13]. The framing of research tasks is particularly important to match students’ skills in this context. For example, a citizen science project in rural northern Germany engaged 8- to 10-year-old students to investigate seed predation. While students struggled to estimate vegetation height, the values they recorded for seed counting were similar to those of professional scientists, as their skills were matched appropriately to the methods [44]. Guidance surrounding the appropriate skill and knowledge level of students is more readily achieved where citizen science projects are curriculum aligned [45]. Teachers have reported that projects developed without clear links to the curriculum are challenging to incorporate into lessons [18,29,46], this may be due to teacher time constraints and/or because project tasks are mismatched with student skill level. Ensuring that student skill level is both considered and understood by the citizen science project leaders, ideally through a co-design process with teachers, is essential for the optimal success of citizen science projects in engaging schools and students [47].

In addition to the learning benefits for students engaging in citizen science, teachers, scientists, and projects also benefit from these partnerships. For instance, teachers are able to work closely with researchers and citizen science coordinators [48]. This may increase teachers’ confidence in supervising and facilitating citizen science projects and, more generally, in teaching science, which may be advantageous for teachers who have not been scientifically trained at the tertiary level [49,50]. Scientists also benefit as they are able to expand the amount, depth or scope of data collected and increase the reach and impact of their research through student engagement in citizen science [29]. Furthermore, while citizen science participation is skewed to white, middle-aged men with higher education levels and a large interest in science [51,52], engagement of school communities can reduce demographic and geographic bias in data collection and increase inclusiveness in citizen science by engaging commonly underrepresented groups [53]. For example, school participation can increase cultural diversity or broaden participants’ age-range [29].

Although citizen science can bring several benefits to schools and communities, there are still specific barriers to its local and global implementation [30,34,45,54,55]. Analysing teachers’ experiences and needs is crucial to understand the challenges and opportunities for effective school-based citizen science implementation.

This article describes work and key outcomes towards Stage One of the Learning By Doing (LBD) initiative. LBD is a multidisciplinary research project funded by the New South Wales (NSW) government Department of Education. It is a joint initiative of an interdisciplinary group of researchers committed to exploring the multiple learning dimensions of citizen science projects. The program was launched in 2021 and comprises three phases, 1) exploring the breadth and depth of citizen science in Australian schools, 2) evaluating the learning dimensions of citizen science, and 3) mapping citizen science to the Australian curriculum [56].

This study aimed to examine the current use of citizen science in Australian schools, together with the benefits and barriers experienced by teachers specialising in different subjects towards the wider implementation of citizen science. We investigated four focal research questions: 1) What knowledge and experience do teachers have of citizen science? 2) How have teachers used citizen science in their personal life and with their students? 3) What are the barriers to citizen science implementation in schools and its broader use? and 4) What would encourage and support the future participation of teachers in citizen science? By addressing these research questions, we aimed to identify future directions that support the implementation of school-based citizen science with the broader aim of enhancing science acceptance, science participation, and scientific literacy skills among school students.

Methods

This study used a mixed-method approach to enable complementary viewpoints addressing the same research questions [57,58]. An online questionnaire comprising open-ended and close-ended questions was designed for distribution among teachers across Australia (S1 File). The questionnaire was hosted on the online cloud-based questionnaire platform Qualtrics [59], available through The University of Sydney. Data was collected in Qualtrics and exported into Microsoft Excel and R [60] for analysis. Data collection spanned five months (10th August 2021—31st December 2021).

Questionnaire design

The first section of the questionnaire focused on participant demographics and teaching experience. Information about each participant’s school, including the postcode and type of school (student age and educational stage, private/independent, and co-ed/single sex) was collected.

The second section focused on understanding respondents’ knowledge of citizen science outside the school environment. Respondents were asked whether they had heard of citizen science and to then select a definition of citizen science from a sample of possible answers. Following this, participants were asked about their use of citizen science in a personal context. If participants had used citizen science they were asked for details of their experience, including the projects they had participated in and how frequently. If participants had not previously engaged in citizen science, they were asked to explain why by selecting the answers that applied from a predefined list (e.g., not aware of citizen science; not interested). When questioning teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science, the authors assume teachers to have varying levels of familiarity with the concept and practice of citizen science and that teachers’ understanding of citizen science may influence their willingness and ability to incorporate such projects into their teaching practices.

The third section targeted citizen science use within schools. Teachers were asked if they had used citizen science in their lessons, with the questionnaire designed to branch according to their response. They were also asked about the projects they had been involved with, the school stages, and the extent of their involvement. Finally, they were asked whether they received support from research teams to participate in citizen science.

Participants who had not used citizen science within the school environment were asked what had limited their involvement. Both groups of teachers were asked to detail what interventions or resources would support their future involvement in citizen science and the factors that would make them more likely to participate.

Research tools validation

Content validity was assessed by expert judges [61], composed of six current or former teachers based at Taronga Zoo, connected to one of the authors [JMM]. All of these teachers had been involved in citizen science in their classrooms, regardless of teaching background. The teacher group completed the questionnaire and provided feedback regarding clarity and order of the questions. Multiple-choice options were revised and extended following their feedback, in order to better represent teacher experience.

Questionnaire distribution and collection

Following validation, the questionnaire was distributed by email to personal networks by the authors and linked to posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These emails and social media posts also encouraged participants to share the questionnaire within their networks—snowball sampling technique [62]. Additionally, organisations known to researchers were contacted to further disseminate the questionnaire within their teacher networks. Teacher specific Facebook pages were also used to further disseminate the questionnaire.

Data analysis

Quantitative data analysis included descriptive statistics to quantify the number of responses, and chi-square tests to make comparisons between categorical variables [63]. These analyses were conducted using Microsoft® Excel® 2019 MSO (16.0.10366.20016) and R [60] after importing the data collected from Qualtrics (S3 File). The quantitative analysis in this questionnaire used descriptive statistics, representing the categorical data through proportions of respondents. From this, further analysis was conducted comparing variables. In all cases, chi-square tests were used, as comparisons were always conducted between two categorical variables.

Qualitative data collected from open-ended questions were exported and analysed to identify common themes. In this analysis, two authors [LBS and YG] generated initial codes, then searched, reviewed, and defined themes based on patterns within open-ended questions [64].

This research was approved by The University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee [protocol number 2021/204]. The consent form was presented to respondents at the beginning of the questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained by participants completing and returning the questionnaire.

Sample

A total of 355 teachers responded to the questionnaire, with 82% (n = 293) completing the full questionnaire. Respondents were predominantly women and relatively equally spread across four of five age ranges (Table 1). Respondents were predominantly secondary teachers (students aged 11–18 years). Most teachers surveyed were from co-ed schools (Fig 1).

Table 1. Teacher demographics from the online questionnaire.

Demographics Responses N %
Gender Female 234 75%
Male 75 24%
Prefer to self-describe 1 0%
Prefer not to say 4 1%
Age 20–29 59 19%
30–39 92 29%
40–49 76 24%
50–59 66 21%
60+ 21 7%
Nationality Australia 271 86%
Overseas 43 14%
Primary language English 287 91%
Other 27 9%
Teaching experience (in years) 1–5 78 25%
6–10 63 20%
11–15 54 17%
16–20 30 9%
20+ 92 29%
Science background No tertiary experience 85 27%
First year 33 11%
Second year 21 7%
Third year 70 22%
Honours 38 12%
Masters 61 19%
PhD or above 6 2%

Fig 1. School type and category of participating teachers (N = 288).

Fig 1

Teachers had a range of experience levels, with 20+ years the most frequently selected category. A variety of science-specific tertiary experience was reported, with most teachers having no tertiary science experience and the second largest response corresponding to a third-year undergraduate level of science-specific study. Teachers reported that they taught an average of 2.5 subjects each (Fig 2). When asked about which subjects they teach (n = 297), 33% of teachers taught one subject and 30% taught four or more subjects. Of these, 58% of respondents teaching one subject were secondary school teachers (n = 98), and 74% (n = 88) of respondents teaching four or more subjects were primary school teachers. The most frequent combination of subjects were Science, Mathematics, English, Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE), Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE), and Creative Arts for primary school teachers (28%, n = 157), and Science and Biology for secondary school teachers (12%, n = 182).

Fig 2. School subjects taught by respondents (N = 297; teachers were able to select more than one subject).

Fig 2

Subjects are based on the subject areas for NSW. HSIE = Human Society and Its Environment; PDHPE = Personal Development, Health and Physical Education; TAS = Technological and Applied Studies.

The school system in Australia is organised in stages or years. Primary School, from Kindergarten to Year 6 (K-6) comprises four stages of learning: 1) Early Stage or Foundation = Kindergarten (starting from 4.5 years of age); 2) Stage 1 = Years 1 and 2; 3) Stage 2 = Years 3 and 4; and 4) Stage 3 = Years 5 and 6. Secondary School, from Year 7 to Year 12 (Higher School Certificate) comprises three stages of learning: 1) Stage 4 = Years 7 and 8 (starting around 12 years of age); 2) Stage 5 = Years 9 and 10 (from about 14 years of age); and 3) Stage 6 = Years 11 and 12 (finishing ~18 years of age) [65].

Following the classification of postcodes, 77% of respondents were found to work in NSW, with smaller responses from teachers based in Victoria (8%), Queensland (6%), South Australia (3%), Northern Territory (3%), Western Australia (2%), Tasmania (1%), and Australian Capital Territory (1%). Due to the small sample sizes of some territories and states, statistically relevant comparisons between states/territories were not possible. Instead, postcodes were classified using the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry classifications system [66]. The department has three postcode classifications: metropolitan, rural, and split (part metropolitan, part rural). We converted postcode entries on the survey using the postcode delivery classifications tool [66]. Out of 283 responses, 81% of teachers were from metropolitan areas, 16% from rural areas and 3% from split areas.

Results

Teachers’ knowledge and experience about citizen science

Overall, over 40% of teachers had used citizen science in their personal lives (45%, n = 295) or lessons (41%, n = 283), and 83% of those who had not yet used it (n = 166) indicated that they would like to in their response. Teachers who participated as citizen scientists outside of school were significantly more likely to include it in their classrooms (X2 = 51.36, df = 2, p < 0.05). Of teachers who had used citizen science in their classrooms (n = 108), they rated the experience mostly as average (35%), good (42%), and very good (13%). They reported using citizen science on multiple occasions (45%). Additionally, 94% of teachers who had used citizen science in their lessons intended to continue to do so.

Over half of respondents (51%, n = 298) had heard of ’citizen science’. Among these, 32% reported that their knowledge of citizen science was average, 33% reported a good knowledge, and 18% reported having a very good knowledge. When asked to select the definition that best describes citizen science, 53% (n = 298) selected the most correct from four options (see S2 File). Selecting the correct definition was correlated to school type (Table 2); teachers from secondary public schools were better able to correctly define citizen science than teachers from other types of school; and teachers who had heard of citizen science before were also more likely to choose the right definition (70%).

Table 2. Teachers’ knowledge, experience, and use of citizen science in classrooms.

Cross-analysis between subject taught and school type and knowledge/experience with citizen science X2 df p-value
Subject taught Have heard of citizen science 230.5 172 <0.05 *
Rate their own knowledge of citizen science (very poor, poor, average, good, very good) 451.29 430 0.23
Correctly defined citizen science 359.71 344 0.27
Have used citizen science in their classrooms 216.49 172 <0.05 *
School type (primary, middle, secondary, combined/central) Have heard of citizen science 19.36 6 <0.05 *
Rate their own knowledge of citizen science (very poor, poor, average, good, very good) 31.52 15 <0.05 *
Correctly defined citizen science 21.94 12 <0.05 *
Have used citizen science in their classrooms 3.51 6 0.74
School type (independent/non-religious, independent/religious, public, religious) Have heard of citizen science 17.13 6 <0.05 *
Rate their own knowledge of citizen science (very poor, poor, average, good, very good) 32.88 15 <0.05 *
Correctly defined citizen science 23.61 12 <0.05 *
Have used citizen science in their classrooms 5.92 6 0.43
School type (single sex boys, single sex girls, co-ed) Have heard of citizen science 11.42 4 <0.05 *
Rate their own knowledge of citizen science (very poor, poor, average, good, very good) 20.00 10 <0.05 *
Correctly defined citizen science 11.41 8 0.18
Have used citizen science in their classrooms 2.65 4 0.62

*statistically significant test result (P ≤ 0.05).

School location, subject taught and previous (personal) experience with citizen science appeared to be strong determinants of the likelihood of teachers to have used citizen science in class (Tables 2 and 3, Fig 3). In terms of school location, a significant relationship was found between location (metropolitan or rural schools), and use of citizen science in the classroom, with rural schools more likely to participate in citizen science (X2 = 10.46, df = 4, p = 0.03; Fig 3). Likewise, we observed a significant correlation between the subject taught by teachers and their use of citizen science in classrooms. Science teachers (K-6 and 7–10), biology teachers, and HSIE teachers were more likely to have used citizen science in their lessons and more inclined to start or continue using citizen science in the future (Tables 3 and 4). We found no relationship between teachers’ use of citizen science in classrooms, school type (comparing government and non-government schools), and age level taught (primary, secondary, middle, or combined) (Table 2).

Table 3. Subject taught, teacher’s use of citizen science in classrooms, and teacher’s likelihood of using citizen science in the future.

Have used citizen science Will start using citizen science in the future Will continue using citizen science in the future
Subject taught X2 p-value X2 p-value X2 p-value
Science K-6 6.87 <0.05 * 9.45 <0.05 * 10.04 <0.05 *
Science 7–10 13.58 <0.05 * 10.58 <0.05 * 12.47 <0.05 *
Chemistry 0.83 0.66 1.63 0.44 2.07 0.36
Physics 3.27 0.19 3.29 0.19 2.28 0.32
Biology 8.80 <0.05 * 5.60 0.06 10.61 <0.05 *
Mathematics 0.27 0.87 0.16 0.92 0.10 0.95
English 1.26 0.53 1.40 0.50 0.17 0.92
HSIE 8.16 <0.05 * 9.19 <0.05 * 3.39 0.18
PDHPE 0.35 0.84 0.41 0.81 0.13 0.94
Creative arts 2.45 0.29 0.08 0.96 1.37 0.50
TAS 0.94 0.62 1.06 0.59 1.27 0.53
Languages 0.93 0.63 0.55 0.76 3.47 0.18

*statistically significant test result (P ≤ 0.05); DF = 2.

Fig 3. School location and teacher’s use of citizen science in classrooms (N = 304).

Fig 3

Table 4. Support received from research teams.

Identified themes Sub-themes Examples
Resources 1) Resources from citizen science programs (kits, identification guides, teaching resources); "I have used resources created by [anonymised project name] in my classroom and online learning";
"Current flora and fauna data of ecosystems from council".
2) Resources from councils or industry (guides, brochures, lists, kits);
3) Online resources (videos, lesson plans, information sheets);
4) Information from Visitor Centres;
5) Training from a citizen science project (online or in school, webinar).
Curriculum mapping Co-created citizen science project "I worked alongside the [anonymised project name] to develop a citizen science project for our year 9s"
Collaboration 1) Scientists-students’ interactions (citizen science facilitators or researchers coming to schools or collaborating with the teacher); "We had the scientist behind the [anonymised project name] visit the school.";
"Regular engagement and correspondence with other citizen scientists"
2) Regular engagement with other citizen scientists.

The way teachers use citizen science varied in: frequency; the type of support received; how they learned about citizen science; and the projects in which they were involved (in both their personal lives and schools). Citizen science usage was relatively novel for some teachers, 38% reported they had been using it in class for a year or less, while 35% reported using it for over three or more years (Fig 4A). The frequency of teachers’ citizen science use varied; most (44%, n = 110) reported that they used it on multiple occasions, rather than just once or consistently across a whole term or year (Fig 4B). In terms of school stages, teachers reported exploration of citizen science across all education stages, though it was most frequently employed in stage 4 (years 7 and 8) and stage 5 (years 9 and 10) (Fig 4C).

Fig 4. Description of citizen science use in schools as reported by teachers in terms of A) Period of time, B) frequency, and C) school stage (n = 169).

Fig 4

Interestingly, despite the potential for citizen science as a tool for remote science teaching during COVID-19, the pandemic did not prompt citizen science inclusion for most respondents (73%, n = 108) notwithstanding that 57% of these teachers reported participation in citizen science before the pandemic. Although COVID-19 did not prompt the use of citizen science for respondents (p>0.05), 10% of teachers started using it for the first time during the pandemic, and 17% of teachers started using citizen science more.

How teachers use citizen science

Most of the respondents who took part in citizen science in their personal lives participated in species monitoring projects in Australia, with ’Aussie Backyard Bird Count’ (19%, n = 292), ’Frog ID’ (14%, n = 292), ’Birds in Backyards’ (11%, n = 292) and iNaturalist (10%, n = 292) cited most frequently. Similarly, the teachers who used citizen science in their lessons, participated mainly in species and weather monitoring, with ’Aussie Backyard Bird Count’ (20%, n = 198), ’Frog ID’ (10%, n = 198), ’Birds in Backyards’ (10%, n = 198) and ClimateWatch (10%, n = 198) the four projects most commonly named.

Most teachers learned about citizen science from other teachers (20%, n = 108) and news or social media (18%, n = 108), previous experience (15%, n = 108) and the Department of Education (10%, n = 108). How teachers used citizen science also varied based on the support they received from research teams. This was expressed in terms of resources, curriculum alignment and collaboration (Table 4). Of the 26 teachers who responded to the open-ended question about the support received from citizen science project teams, 65% reported receiving resources from citizen science researchers, including guides, kits and training (online or in person); 31% reported engaging with researchers through school visits and one respondent reported the co-creation of a citizen science project designed for Year 9.

Barriers to citizen science implementation in schools and broader use

Respondents who had not used citizen science in their personal lives reported a lack of knowledge of available projects (67%, n = 161) as the main reason for not participating, followed by lack of time, resources, and interest (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Reasons for not participating in citizen science.

Fig 5

Teachers could select more than one option.

The most commonly reported barriers to school citizen science implementation stemmed from teachers’ lack of awareness of citizen science and/or of the projects available (31%, n = 166). Lack of curriculum alignment and time were also common issues reported by respondents. Interestingly, only a small proportion of teachers (2%) identified lack of school support and resources (e.g. lack of technology) as the main barriers to citizen science use in classrooms (Fig 6). Responses to other closed-ended questions related to school support revealed that while 54% of teachers were unsure if their school would support citizen science use, 42% were confident of school support. Only 4% of teachers reported that their school would not support the use of citizen science. Additionally, one teacher mentioned that challenges imposed by lockdowns during COVID-19 reduced their ability to engage in citizen science.

Fig 6. Barriers to citizen science access for teachers who have not used citizen science in their lessons (n = 167).

Fig 6

Incentives to support teachers’ future participation in citizen science

Questions exploring incentives for future participation in citizen science revealed that 92% of teachers would be more likely to use citizen science programs if they had strong links to the curriculum, and that 71% would be more likely to use it if programs included interactions with research teams (n = 263) (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Factors that may influence school use of citizen science by teachers.

Fig 7

N = 248.

The thematic analysis revealed similarities across the 208 teachers who responded to an open-ended question regarding factors that would encourage their future participation in citizen science. Three main themes were identified by the two coders [LBS and YG], comprising 1) accessibility—increased promotion of available projects, resource availability, training and clear links of citizen science application to real life 2) curriculum mapping—the importance of links to curriculum, including those extending beyond STEM and 3) collaboration—reported needs, such as regular communication with research teams and receiving feedback (Table 5).

Table 5. Identified themes from the open-ended question: What would encourage and support teachers’ future participation in citizen science (N = 208).

Themes Sub-themes Examples
Accessibility 1) More promotion, information, knowledge; "Further awareness about what’s available.";
"More PD and unit/lesson plans for specific projects".
2) Clarity and applicability;
3) Project ideas;
4) Time;
5) Specific training;
6) Overall resources availability;
7) Support from schools and institutions;
8) Support to Indigenous students;
9) Ease and flexibility;
10) Safety and Privacy.
Curriculum mapping 1) Links to the curriculum; "Curriculum relevant science topics for the age group.
Connections to our local environment."
2) Links to the curriculum beyond STEM.
Collaboration 1) Connectivity; "Collaboration and support from research institutes as well as platforms for data collection that suit indigenous students for whom English is a 3rd or 4th language. i.e., heavily picture-based apps on tablets for use in the field."
2) Feedback;

Teachers shared additional comments in response to the final survey question ‘Is there anything else you would like to share about your involvement with citizen science?’. Responses varied from teachers sharing their positive and valuable experiences with citizen science to those who shared that as a new term and concept, they required more information on citizen science. Two teachers commented they would specifically like to see projects linked with Indigenous Knowledge. Teachers also mentioned that citizen science projects should be interdisciplinary and applicable to local contexts.

Discussion

Teachers’ knowledge and experience about citizen science

The results of this study describe the experiences, knowledge, and barriers to using citizen science in classrooms reported by teachers from across Australia. Although recent research has explored teacher knowledge of citizen science and barriers to its implementation in schools [46,55,67,68], to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the current state of citizen science in Australian schools and identify the challenges and opportunities associated with its implementation. Australia has a growing tradition in citizen science [69,70], with increased participation in crowdsourcing platforms, such as iNaturalist [71] and reported benefits for the community involved, such as increased scientific literacy and behaviour changes [17]. Understanding teacher experiences and barriers to school-implementation of citizen science in Australia could help us understand similar opportunities and challenges worldwide, where citizen science is also emerging and expanding.

Around half of the teachers surveyed reported previous experience with citizen science. Also, as anticipated, teachers with responsibility in delivering science content were the most likely to include citizen science in their classrooms. This trend reflects the current state of citizen science in Australia, where the majority of the 600 plus projects listed in the Australian Citizen Science Association and Atlas of Living Australia are related to the environment and species monitoring [72,73]. However, citizen science projects with a focus extending beyond STEM disciplines are emerging worldwide and could offer an opportunity for arts and humanities teachers to incorporate this approach into their lessons. Examples of such programs involve translation of historical documents, correcting and transcribing texts or manuscripts, digitising images for digital curation [74,75], and documenting and georeferencing graveyards to understand local history [76].

In exploring the experience of teachers in citizen science through a nationwide survey, we discovered more about their knowledge and practice in such programs. Our findings showed that science teachers (K-6 and 7–10), biology teachers, and HSIE teachers had used this approach in their lessons more than other subject teachers. Citizen science within STEM not only amplifies the scope of scientific inquiry but also cultivates a hands-on, experiential learning environment for students [77,78]. The active engagement of students in citizen science projects serves as a catalyst for fostering a deeper and more nuanced understanding of scientific principles, providing a bridge between theoretical concepts and practical application [79]. In addition, promoting the benefits of citizen science in the humanities could encourage the implementation of interdisciplinary projects in schools and reach a broader range of students. Beyond supporting teaching science content, citizen science can foster the development of critical thinking and inquiry skills relevant to the entire community, including those who do not pursue scientific careers [80].

Additionally, for the purpose of our study, we employed an expert review process, where NSW Department of Education teachers or former teachers, based at Taronga Zoo, validated the content of our research instrument. To enhance the study’s replicability and international relevance, we recommend that other researchers undertake a similar validation process by engaging a cohort of teachers to review the instrument and propose context-specific adaptations (e.g., subjects taught, etc.).

The breadth and depth of citizen science in schools

As chi-square tests revealed, both government and non-government schools have similar levels of access to citizen science, and this aspect is not likely to hinder participation. Additionally, rural schools tended to participate in citizen science more frequently. This is consistent with findings that citizen science volunteers tended to be from more rural areas in comparison with more urban areas [81]. Indeed, a recent study showed that the number and diversity of citizen science projects targeting metropolitan areas is relatively low in Australia [82]. While rural schools may provide easier access to natural environments due to proximity and familiarity with local issues, the availability of urban projects could support broader participation of metropolitan schools in citizen science.

Teachers’ preferences for species and environmental monitoring initiatives may be attributed to their accessibility and ease of participation. Historically, these types of citizen science projects have been among the earliest and most widely available initiatives [14]. Nonetheless, the flexibility in observation methods reduces teachers’ and schools’ constraints, such as time, safety, and accessibility to resources [83,84]. Such projects are typically free or low-cost and only require basic equipment, such as notebooks, or computers or tablets, for capturing and uploading local data to platforms like eBird and iNaturalist [23,45]. We note that, where possible, it is often preferable if students collect and immediately input information using smartphones or tablets through project-specific apps or websites.

The higher incidence in junior high school and primary school can be accounted for by the flexibility of the curriculum [85]. Lower incidence of citizen science use in stage 6 could be linked to the rigour of the curriculum at this level, where students have a large amount of content to learn for final exams [85]. Low frequency in early stage 1 could be related to the lack of citizen science projects that address students’ skill levels and knowledge at this age [44].

Barriers to use of citizen science in schools

The lack of awareness of citizen science and how to use it, were found to be the main barriers to its implementation, aspects that could be overcome by an increase in school-based citizen science projects piloted and professional development training with teachers, as discussed in recent research [55]. There is also a need to increase teachers’ awareness of the benefits of citizen science for students. In alignment with previous research [55,86] the present study [56] also reported the lack of time and curriculum alignment as the main challenges in implementing citizen science in schools. Teachers may be more likely to incorporate citizen science into the classroom if they link citizen science purpose and design to the Australian curriculum as well as develop meaningful, contextual, and practical projects.

Non-science teachers reported a lack of curriculum alignment as the main barrier to citizen science implementation much more frequently than science teachers, which is to be expected as most citizen science projects can, with some work and creativity, be aligned to the science curriculum already [87,88]. As previously reported by educators and leaders in citizen science, a challenge lies in the inherent difficulty of aligning projects with students due to their original design not being expressly intended for educational purposes [56]. This challenge underscores the need for a deliberate and purposeful alignment strategy to enhance the educational utility of citizen science initiatives in school settings. Co-creating projects that feature interdisciplinary synergies between social sciences, humanities, and STEM could support the emergence of more diverse and inclusive citizen science school projects [38].

Additionally, this study identified a lack of curriculum alignment as the main barrier to citizen science implementation in classrooms. Developing a framework that explicitly maps citizen science projects to educational standards is crucial for overcoming this obstacle and facilitating effective classroom integration. Previous research has developed resources to align citizen science projects with the Australian curriculum, aiding teachers in classroom implementation [87]. Various citizen science projects were mapped to the NSW Stage 4 syllabus themes (Physical World, Earth and Space, Living World, and Chemical World) while also highlighting their contributions to skill development and curriculum integration. This guide illustrates how the Big City Birds project, for instance, aligns with the Australian curriculum outcome SC414LW: relating the structure and function of living things to their classification, survival, and reproduction [88]. Developed by [YG], [CP], and [AM], this resource represents the initial phase of the Learning By Doing initiative. Future steps will include: 1) detailed curriculum mapping, 2) expanding to additional educational stages, and 3) aligning with syllabi in other Australian states and territories.

Incentives to support teachers’ future participation in citizen science

Although the vast majority of respondents were likely to use citizen science in the future, a quarter of those surveyed expressed uncertainty about whether they would be inclined to do so. It is possible that this is the result of insufficient support provided by researchers to teachers. Only 28% of teachers who have participated in citizen science have used resources or received support from a research team. This corroborates previous research, as support from researchers to help teachers implement activities was mentioned in focus groups to be very important [56].

Critically, teachers reported that they wanted a more clear understanding on how the data being contributed to citizen science projects apply to real life. Teachers shared that they would like to have specific training in citizen science with school and research institution support. These results link to the main barriers to using citizen science in schools, especially to the lack of knowledge of available programs. Thus, engaging the current and next generations of teachers with regard to the benefits of school-based citizen science could expand its implementation in Australia. As such, we recommend a Unit of Study in citizen science designed and delivered for undergraduate education students (teachers in training) to support the long-term sustainability of school-based citizen science in Australia. Although citizen science projects are starting to be integrated into teacher professional development and preparation courses (see 68, 90), such initiatives are still relatively scarce in the literature. In 2022, five universities in Spain engaged over 350 pre-service Early Childhood and Primary Teachers in a soil health citizen science program [89], while a university in South Australia provided professional learning in species monitoring to middle school teachers [34]. Additional local initiatives worldwide have demonstrated the benefits of such programs [68,90], underscoring the need for broader implementation of professional development opportunities in citizen science for teachers in Australia and globally [29,91].

Finally, formal curriculum links have been shown to increase the benefits of citizen science projects [35]. A study in Spain has shown that citizen science integrated into the curriculum improved students’ interest, curiosity, and appreciation for the sciences, supporting learning and enabling relatability to real life [92]. Additionally, curriculum alignment may help with challenges presented by citizen science project leaders [56].

Research limitations

The teacher scoping questionnaire had a number of limitations, particularly associated with the sampling method. The ethics application was approved when a large part of the country was forced into lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020, and schools were teaching remotely online. At first the team delayed questionnaire distribution, as the school lockdowns were thought to be a short-term measure. However, when lockdowns were extended, the questionnaire was distributed to minimise delays to the research. At this time teachers were even busier than usual while teaching their students remotely, and it is thought this may have limited the sample size. The snowball sampling technique may have introduced selection bias into the sample, as many participants are contacts of researchers who may not represent a broad sample of teachers nationally [62]. Similarly, it is thought that the sampling method resulted in a skewed response level from New South Wales, with the overall dataset less representative of the entirety of Australia. This skew to NSW was, however, useful for the project team’s implementation of citizen science programs within schools in the state. The responses were also biased in terms of demographics. The demographics of respondents corroborate the high proportion of women teachers in Australia [93]. Future studies could seek a larger number of responses from every state and territory in Australia.

Conclusion

Our results show that linking citizen science purpose and design to the Australian curriculum, and building meaningful, contextual and applicable projects could contribute to teachers being more likely to include citizen science in their classrooms. Of the teachers who participated in the questionnaire, 40% use or have used citizen science in their classes. This number is thought to be higher than actual usage rates across Australia due to questionnaire sampling, with 52% of the teachers surveyed sharing that they knew what was meant by citizen science. Prior personal involvement predicted classroom use of citizen science. Rural schools participated to a greater extent than metropolitan schools. And science teachers have used citizen science significantly more than non-science teachers.

Teachers’ use of citizen science is varied. It is used across all curriculum stages, with highest use in stage 1 through to stage 5. Early stage 1 and stage 6 teachers used citizen science to a lesser extent, possibly due to the demands associated with low levels of skill development and curriculum constraints respectively. Teachers’ use of citizen science tended to be short term, either across multiple occasions or a single use, with only a small proportion of teachers using it for longer periods. Additionally, citizen science use was relatively new for many teachers, with 38% using it for a year or less, however there were some patterns of long-term use with 35% of teachers having used it for 3 or more years. Teacher-use patterns can inform school citizen science project planning.

Teachers reported a variety of barriers to citizen science participation. The most frequent barriers (a lack of awareness, never having thought of it, and lack of curriculum alignment) indicate two major issues for citizen science uptake in schools. Teachers are unaware of the opportunities that are out there and how to access them, while current projects are not often designed to suit teachers and fit with curriculum requirements. There was no significant relationship between the main barriers and location or school type, but non-science teachers selected curriculum alignment as a barrier more than anticipated by our research team. Additionally, teachers strongly agreed that greater curriculum links and support from a research team would benefit their participation in citizen science. These barriers indicate there needs to be more communication about citizen science with teachers, but also that projects could be aligning to curriculum elements beyond science to increase involvement and engagement.

As citizen science can contribute to STEM career motivation, it is important to understand how likely both experienced and recently-qualified teachers are to explore this approach in their classrooms. Our research findings contribute to a broader understanding of how citizen science has been used in Australian schools and highlight the challenges and opportunities for its implementation. Moreover, insights from our research provide valuable contributions to the international discourse on citizen science in educational settings, suggesting that the challenges and opportunities identified in Australian schools may offer instructive parallels for global contexts. Finally, as part of the LBD project, these results help us refine the next steps for citizen science implementation in schools.

In conclusion, our findings underscore the need for citizen science projects to align more closely with the specific needs of schools, emphasising the necessity for responsiveness in project design and implementation. To address this, the LBD project has proactively undertaken measures to mitigate existing barriers. These efforts involve demonstrating a commitment to upscaling the availability of citizen science projects within educational contexts and building more effective partnerships with schools. As we advocate for alignment between projects and educational needs, it is essential to explore collaborative models where both researchers and teachers contribute their expertise. This emphasises the need for a shared responsibility, acknowledging that bridging the gap between scientific research and educational requirements necessitates a concerted effort from both communities. As our previous research has highlighted, researchers often lack educational insights and an understanding of the school context, and teachers may face constraints including time and a lack of prior opportunity to engage in scientific research. This challenge, while significant, presents an opportunity for the scientific and educational communities to collaboratively devise innovative solutions, fostering a symbiotic relationship that ensures the meaningful integration of citizen science into school settings.

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

pone.0312680.s001.pdf (115.7KB, pdf)
S2 File

(XLSX)

pone.0312680.s002.xlsx (49.2KB, xlsx)
S3 File

(DOCX)

pone.0312680.s003.docx (15KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and pay respect to the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the Traditional Owners of the land on which we research, teach, and collaborate at The University of Sydney. We acknowledge all teachers’ efforts in contributing to this research by completing the questionnaire. The authors acknowledge the Statistical Consulting Service provided by Alexandra Green from the Sydney Informatics Hub, a Core Research Facility of the University of Sydney. We also acknowledge teachers from the Taronga Zoo for their time piloting and validating the covered questions. We thank the thoughtful reviewers of this paper for their helpful comments.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Some columns and rows in Supplementary Material 2 were anonymised to comply with the Ethics requirements.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the NSW Department of Education via a Strategic Education Grant (AUD600,000) awarded to AM, YG, CP, AB, and JM with additional support of Motion through a Westpac Research Fellowship. The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, et al. Next steps for citizen science. Science. 2014;343(6178):1436–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cooper CB, Lewenstein BV. Two meanings of citizen science. The Rightful Place of Science. 2016:51. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Storksdieck M, Shirk JL, Cappadonna JL, Domroese M, Göbel C, Haklay M, et al. Associations for citizen science: regional knowledge, global collaboration. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2016;1(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Haklay M. 2018. https://povesham.wordpress.com/2018/10/05/how-many-citizen-scientists-in-the-world/.
  • 5.Follett R, Strezov V. An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0143687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(10):551–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pelacho M, Ruiz G, Sanz F, Tarancón A, Clemente-Gallardo J. Analysis of the evolution and collaboration networks of citizen science scientific publications. Scientometrics. 2021;126(1):225–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education. 2005;27(9):1099–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Schuttler SG, Sears RS, Orendain I, Khot R, Rubenstein D, Rubenstein N, et al. Citizen Science in Schools: Students Collect Valuable Mammal Data for Science, Conservation, and Community Engagement. BioScience. 2018;69(1):69–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lüsse M, Brockhage F, Beeken M, Pietzner V. Citizen science and its potential for science education. International Journal of Science Education. 2022;44(7):1120–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kirksey E, Munro P, van Dooren T, Emery D, Maree Kreller A, Kwok J, et al. Feeding the flock: Wild cockatoos and their Facebook friends. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. 2018;1(4):602–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Adler FR, Green AM, Şekercioğlu ÇH. Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2020;1469(1):52–64. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, et al. Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy. BioScience. 2009;59(11):977–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R. The history of public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012;10(6):285–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Davis A, Taylor CE, Martin JM. Are pro-ecological values enough? Determining the drivers and extent of participation in citizen science programs. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2019;24(6):501–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cooper C. Citizen science: How ordinary people are changing the face of discovery: Abrams; 2016.
  • 17.Roger E, Klistorner S. BioBlitzes help science communicators engage local communities in environmental research. Journal of Science Communication. 2016;15(3):A06. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Makuch K, Aczel M. Children and citizen science. UCL Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wiggins A, Crowston K, editors. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences; 2011: IEEE.
  • 20.Kelemen-Finan J, Scheuch M, Winter S. Contributions from citizen science to science education: an examination of a biodiversity citizen science project with schools in Central Europe. International Journal of Science Education. 2018;40(17):2078–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saunders ME, Roger E, Geary WL, Meredith F, Welbourne DJ, Bako A, et al. Citizen science in schools: Engaging students in research on urban habitat for pollinators. Austral ecology. 2018;43(6):635–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schuttler SG, Sears RS, Orendain I, Khot R, Rubenstein D, Rubenstein N, et al. Citizen Science in Schools: Students Collect Valuable Mammal Data for Science, Conservation, and Community Engagement. Bioscience. 2019;69(1):69–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, Crain RL, Martin J, et al. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012;10(6):291–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Branchini S, Meschini M, Covi C, Piccinetti C, Zaccanti F, Goffredo S. Participating in a Citizen Science Monitoring Program: Implications for Environmental Education. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Merenlender AM, Crall AW, Drill S, Prysby M, Ballard H. Evaluating environmental education, citizen science, and stewardship through naturalist programs. Conservation Biology. 2016;30(6):1255–65. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wals AE, Brody M, Dillon J, Stevenson RB. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science. 2014;344(6184):583–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hecker S, Garbe L, Bonn A. The European citizen science landscape—a snapshot. UCL Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Atias O, Kali Y, Shavit A, Baram-Tsabari A. Meaningful participation of schools in scientific research through contributory citizen science projects. Science Education. 2023;107(5):1163–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Harlin J, Kloetzer L, Patton D, Leonhard C. Turning students into citizen scientists. JSTOR; 2018.
  • 30.Bopardikar A, Bernstein D, McKenney S. Designer considerations and processes in developing school-based citizen-science curricula for environmental education. Journal of Biological Education. 2023;57(3):592–617. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kocman D, Stevanec T, Novak R, Kranjec N. Citizen Science as Part of the Primary School Curriculum: A Case Study of a Technical Day on the Topic of Noise and Health. Sustainability. 2020;12(23). [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Spicer H, Nadolny D, Fraser E. Going squirrelly: Evaluating educational outcomes of a curriculum-aligned citizen science investigation of non-native squirrels. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2020;5(1):1–13.33014428 [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Aivelo T. School students’ attitudes towards unloved biodiversity: insights from a citizen science project about urban rats. Environmental Education Research. 2023;29(1):81–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Paige K, Hattam R, Daniels CB. Two models for implementing citizen science projects in middle school. The Journal of Educational Enquiry. 2015;14(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Spicer HE, Nadolny D, Fraser E. Going squirrelly: Evaluating educational outcomes of a curriculum-aligned citizen science investigation of non-native squirrels. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2020;5(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Jennett C, Kloetzer L, Schneider D, Iacovides I, Cox A, Gold M, et al. Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication. 2016;15(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Svendsen BA. The dynamics of citizen sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2018;22(2):137–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tauginienė L, Butkevičienė E, Vohland K, Heinisch B, Daskolia M, Suškevičs M, et al. Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: the power of interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Communications. 2020;6(1):89. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Golumbic YN, Motion A. Expanding the Scope of Citizen Science: Learning and Engagement of Undergraduate Students in a Citizen Science Chemistry Lab. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2021;6(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Scanlon E. Open educational resources in support of science learning: tools for inquiry and observation. Distance Education. 2012;33(2):221–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Edwards R, Kirn S, Hillman T, Kloetzer L, Mathieson K, McDonnell D, et al. Learning and developing science capital through citizen science. UCL Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Arza V, Fressoli M. Systematizing benefits of open science practices. Information Services & Use. 2017;37(4):463–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.de Sherbinin A, Bowser A, Chuang T-R, Cooper C, Danielsen F, Edmunds R, et al. The critical importance of citizen science data. Frontiers in Climate. 2021;3:20. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Miczajka VL, Klein A-M, Pufal G. Elementary school children contribute to environmental research as citizen scientists. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(11):e0143229. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Soanes K, Cranney K, Dade MC, Edwards AM, Palavalli-Nettimi R, Doherty TS. How to work with children and animals: A guide for school-based citizen science in wildlife research. Austral Ecology. 2020;45(1):3–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Tyson A. NOLS and nutcrackers: The motivations, barriers, and benefits experienced by outdoor adventure educators in the context of a citizen science project. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2019;4(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Aristeidou M, Ferguson R, Perryman L-A, Tegama N. The Roles and Value of Citizen Science: Perceptions of Professional Educators Enrolled on a Postgraduate Course. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2021;6(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Trautmann NM, Shirk JL, Krasny ME. Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research: Cornell University Press; 2012. p. 179–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hayes ML, Smith PS, Midden WR. Factors Affecting Teachers’ Decisions to Integrate Citizen Science into Classroom Instruction. Horizon Research, Inc. 2020.
  • 50.Aristeidou M, Lorke J, Ismail N. Citizen Science: Schoolteachers’ Motivation, Experiences, and Recommendations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2023;21(7):2067–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pateman RM, Dyke A, West SE. The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Braz Sousa L, Fricker S, Webb CE, Baldock KL, Williams CR. Citizen Science Mosquito Surveillance by Ad Hoc Observation Using the iNaturalist Platform. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(10):6337. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19106337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cooper CB, Smith JA. Gender Patterns in Bird-related Recreation in the USA and UK. Ecology and Society. 2010;15. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shah HR, Martinez LR. Current approaches in implementing citizen science in the classroom. Journal of microbiology & biology education. 2016;17(1):17–22. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Roche J, Bell L, Galvão C, Golumbic YN, Kloetzer L, Knoben N, et al. Citizen Science, Education, and Learning: Challenges and Opportunities. Frontiers in Sociology. 2020;5. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2020.613814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Preston C, Golumbic Y, Kenneally C, Phway TS, Sousa LB, Martin J, et al. Citizen science in schools-perceptions of project leaders and teachers. Teaching Science. 2023;69(3):22–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research: Sage publications; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research. 2007;1(2):112–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Qualtrics P, UT. Online Survey Software—Powering +1B Surveys Annually // Qualtrics AU. 2021.
  • 60.R Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2012. 2018.
  • 61.Litwin MS, Fink A. How to measure survey reliability and validity: Sage; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A. Snowball sampling. SAGE research methods foundations. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis: John Wiley & Sons; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77–101. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.NSW Government ESA. NSW Curriculum 2023 [https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/stages.
  • 66.Australian Government DoAFaF. Postcode delivery classifications 2023 [https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/import/online-services/delivery-postcode-classifications.
  • 67.Lynch LI, Dauer JM, Babchuk WA, Heng-Moss T, Golick D. In Their Own Words: The Significance of Participant Perceptions in Assessing Entomology Citizen Science Learning Outcomes Using a Mixed Methods Approach. Insects. 2018;9(1):16. doi: 10.3390/insects9010016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Scheuch M, Panhuber T, Winter S, Kelemen-Finan J, Bardy-Durchhalter M, Kapelari S. Butterflies & wild bees: biology teachers’ PCK development through citizen science. Journal of Biological Education. 2018;52(1):79–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Borda A, Gray K, Downie L. Citizen science models in health research: an Australian commentary. Online Journal of Public Health Informatics. 2019;11(3). doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v11i3.10358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Quinnell R, Motion A, Illingworth S, Calyx C, Bray H, Borda A. Citizen Science in Australian Higher Education: Emerging Learning and Research Communities. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education. 2023;31(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mesaglio T, Callaghan CT. An overview of the history, current contributions and future outlook of iNaturalist in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2021;48:289–303. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.ACSA ACSA. ACSA’s Project Finder 2022 [https://citizenscience.org.au/ala-project-finder/.
  • 73.ALA AoLA. Australian Citizen Science Project Finder 2022 [https://biocollect.ala.org.au/acsa#isCitizenScience%3Dtrue%26max%3D20%26sort%3DnameSort.
  • 74.Dobreva M, Azzopardi D. Citizen science in the humanities: a promise for creativity. 2014.
  • 75.Noordegraaf J, Bartholomew A, Eveleigh A, editors. Modeling crowdsourcing for cultural heritage. Museums and the Web; 2014.
  • 76.Bocanegra Barbecho L, Toscano M, Delgado Anés L. Co-creación, participación y redes sociales para hacer historia. Ciencia con y para la sociedad. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hiller SE, Kitsantas A. The Effect of a Horseshoe Crab Citizen Science Program on Middle School Student Science Performance and STEM Career Motivation. School Science and Mathematics. 2014;114(6):302–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Tsivitanidou O, Ioannou A. Citizen Science, K-12 science education and use of technology: a synthesis of empirical research. Journal of Science Communication. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science. 2016;25(1):2–16. doi: 10.1177/0963662515607406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Jenkins LL. Using citizen science beyond teaching science content: A strategy for making science relevant to students’ lives. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2011;6:501–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Mac Domhnaill C, Lyons S, Nolan A. The citizens in citizen science: demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics of biodiversity recorders in Ireland. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2020;5(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Roger E, Motion A. Citizen science in cities: an overview of projects focused on urban Australia. Urban Ecosystems. 2022;25(3):741–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009;24(9):467–71. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Wood C, Sullivan B, Iliff M, Fink D, Kelling S. eBird: engaging birders in science and conservation. PLoS Biol. 2011;9(12):e1001220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Hudson P. A model for curricula integration using the Australian Curriculum. Teaching Science. 2012;58(3):40–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Rennie LJ. Making Science Beyond the Classroom Accessible to Students. In: Corrigan D, Buntting C, Dillon J, Jones A, Gunstone R, editors. The Future in Learning Science: What’s in it for the Learner? What’s in it for the Learner? Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 151–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Learning By Doing L. The NSW Syllabus and Citizen Science- Stage 4 Curriculum mapping. Zenodo. 2021.
  • 88.Learning By Doing L. Big City Bird Citizen Science Project Mapped to the NSW Stage 4 Curriculum (Version 1). 2021.
  • 89.Eugenio-Gozalbo M, Zuazagoitia D, Ruiz-González A, Corrochano D, Hurtado-Soler A, Talavera M. Implementing citizen science programmes in the context of university gardens to promote pre-service teachers’ scientific literacy: a study case on soil. International Journal of Science Education. 2022;44(10):1619–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Huffling LD, Scott HC. Using critical environmental agency to engage teachers in local watersheds through water quality citizen science. Water. 2021;13(2):205. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Roche J, Bell L, Galvão C, Golumbic YN, Kloetzer L, Knoben N, et al. Citizen science, education, and learning: challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Sociology. 2020;5:613814. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2020.613814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Queiruga-Dios MA, López-Iñesta E, Diez-Ojeda M, Sáiz-Manzanares MC, Dorrío JBV. Citizen Science for Scientific Literacy and the Attainment of Sustainable Development Goals in Formal Education. Sustainability. 2020;12(10). [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Thomson S, Hillman K. The Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018. Australian Report Volume 1: Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. 2019.

Decision Letter 0

José Gutiérrez-Pérez

24 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-42215Teacher experiences and understanding of citizen science in Australian classroomsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Braz Sousa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José Gutiérrez-Pérez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript explores teacher experiences and their understanding of citizen science in Australian classrooms using mixed-methods approach of questionnaires with descriptive data. Through the data collected, the authors analyse teachers’ past experience of citizen science, perceived barriers in implementing such projects in school, and their views on supportive policies or resources to increase participation of teachers in citizen science. The findings point to some interesting insights such as rural schools being more engaged in citizen science, possibly due to proximity to nature as discussed by the authors. However, there may be other factors that might need additional probing. Lack of awareness regarding citizen science projects and absence of clear alignment with curricula were cited as barriers to implementation by a majority of teachers, as compared to lack of infrastructure.

Overall, the manuscript provides a fairly descriptive account of the contours citizen science projects in schools through teachers, but as a reader, there is an expectation for more in-depth analysis regarding the issues mentioned. For instance, the authors mention bird counting projects as being most popular. What features of this activity allows better engagement at teacher and student level? Are citizen science projects a part of teacher professional development or preparation courses? What assumptions do the authors hold when they question teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science? Similarly, are there any citizen science projects developed with an explicit focus on pedagogy? The descriptive data presented isn’t entirely unexpected, and the questions raised call for some suggestions regarding curricular mapping. It would be extremely useful if the authors could provide a rudimentary framework for such mapping using some illustrative examples from middle-school science subjects based on the responses received.

I understand that these are broad suggestions, and it may not be possible to address them all. However, the main aim here to push the authors to go beyond the descriptive data and expand on possible discussions. I would argue that the real value-addition of the manuscript lies in outlining the possibilities that could form a part of future policies and teacher preparation courses.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses a topic of high contemporary interest. The literature review is current and appropriate to the topic. The methodological approach, from a mixed approach, allows us to answer several questions: investigated four focal research questions: 1) What knowledge and experience do teachers have of citizen science? 2) How have

teachers used citizen science in their personal lives and with their students? 3) What are the barriers to citizen science implementation in schools and its broader use? and 4) What would encourage and support the future participation of teachers in citizen science?

It is suggested that the authors attend in more detail to the quality criteria of the instrument used. Mention is made of the content validity process of the instrument, but no relevant information about the reliability of the instrument is appreciated.

We suggest to the authors a complementary analysis of the grouping of the items (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) that would provide relevant information for potential replications of the study, increasing its international interest.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Deborah Dutta

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Nov 11;19(11):e0312680. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312680.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Sep 2024

Response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1:

1. For instance, the authors mention bird counting projects as being most popular. What features of this activity allows better engagement at teacher and student level?

Thank you for your valuable comment. This has been addressed on lines 435-443.

Teachers’ preferences for species and environmental monitoring initiatives may be attributed to their accessibility and ease of participation. Historically, these types of citizen science projects have been among the earliest and most widely available initiatives (Miller-Rushing et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the flexibility in observation methods reduces teachers’ and schools’ constraints, such as time, safety, and accessibility to resources (Silvertown, 2009, Wood et al., 2011). Such projects are typically free or low-cost and require only basic equipment, such as notebooks, or computers or tablets, for capturing and uploading local data to platforms like eBird and iNaturalist (Soanes et al., 2020, Dickinson et al., 2012). We note that, where possible, it is often preferable if students collect and immediately input information using smartphones or tablets through project-specific apps or websites.

2. Are citizen science projects a part of teacher professional development or preparation courses?

This question has been addressed on lines 491-506.

Critically, teachers reported that they wanted a more clear understanding on how the data being contributed to citizen science projects apply to real life. Teachers shared that they would like to have specific training in citizen science with school and research institution support. These results link to the main barriers to using citizen science in schools, especially to the lack of knowledge of available programs. Thus, engaging the current and next generations of teachers with regard to the benefits of school-based citizen science could expand its implementation in Australia. As such, we recommend a Unit of Study in citizen science designed and delivered for undergraduate education students (teachers in training) to support the long-term sustainability of school-based citizen science in Australia. Although citizen science projects are starting to be integrated into teacher professional development and preparation courses, such initiatives are still relatively scarce in the literature. In 2022, five universities in Spain engaged over 350 pre-service Early Childhood and Primary Teachers in a soil health citizen science program (Eugenio-Gozalbo et al., 2022), while a university in South Australia provided professional learning in species monitoring to middle school teachers (Paige et al., 2015). Additional local initiatives worldwide have demonstrated the benefits of such programs (Scheuch et al., 2018, Huffling and Scott, 2021), underscoring the need for broader implementation of professional development opportunities in citizen science for teachers in Australia and globally (Roche et al., 2020, Harlin et al., 2018).

3. What assumptions do the authors hold when they question teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science?

This question has been addressed on lines 166-170.

When questioning teachers regarding their knowledge of citizen science, the authors assume teachers to have varying levels of familiarity with the concept and practice of citizen science and that teachers’ understanding of citizen science may influence their willingness and ability to incorporate such projects into their teaching practices.

4. Similarly, are there any citizen science projects developed with an explicit focus on pedagogy?

Thank you for your question. It has been added to the lines 74-79.

There are, however, limited examples of f citizen science projects that are designed to integrate pedagogical objectives and approaches, aiming to enhance teaching practices and learning outcomes within educational settings (Harlin et al., 2018, Bopardikar et al., 2023). Examples include programs that provide structured teaching resources and adaptable lessons to support schools’ pedagogical practices and curricula (Kocman et al., 2020, Bopardikar et al., 2023). Such programs have been especially reported in the fields of environmental science and biodiversity (Spicer et al., 2020, Aivelo, 2023).

5. The descriptive data presented isn’t entirely unexpected, and the questions raised call for some suggestions regarding curricular mapping. It would be extremely useful if the authors could provide a rudimentary framework for such mapping using some illustrative examples from middle-school science subjects based on the responses received.

Thank you for the suggestion. The initial framework developed by our team has been added to lines 469-482.

Additionally, this study identified a lack of curriculum alignment as the main barrier to citizen science implementation in classrooms. Developing a framework that explicitly maps citizen science projects to educational standards is crucial for overcoming this obstacle and facilitating effective classroom integration. Previous research has developed resources to align citizen science projects with the Australian curriculum, aiding teachers in classroom implementation (Learning By Doing, 2021b). Various citizen science projects were mapped to the NSW Stage 4 syllabus themes (Physical World, Earth and Space, Living World, and Chemical World) while also highlighting their contributions to skill development and curriculum integration. This guide illustrates how the Big City Birds project, for instance, aligns with the Australian curriculum outcome SC414LW: relating the structure and function of living things to their classification, survival, and reproduction (Learning By Doing, 2021a). Developed by [YG], [CP], and [AM], this resource represents the initial phase of the Learning By Doing initiative. Future steps will include: 1) detailed curriculum mapping, 2) expanding to additional educational stages, and 3) aligning with syllabi in other Australian states and territories.

Reviewer #2:

1. It is suggested that the authors attend in more detail to the quality criteria of the instrument used. Mention is made of the content validity process of the instrument, but no relevant information about the reliability of the instrument is appreciated. We suggest to the authors a complementary analysis of the grouping of the items (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) that would provide relevant information for potential replications of the study, increasing its international interest.

Thank you for your suggestion. While exploratory factor analysis (EFA) can be a valuable tool for identifying underlying structures within a dataset, it may not be suitable for our data. Our study is focused on categorical variables, and EFA is typically more appropriate for continuous data where underlying factors are being explored. Therefore, applying EFA in this context may not yield meaningful results. To enhance the study’s replicability and international relevance, other approaches more aligned with the nature of our data would be advisable. For the context of our study, we used Expert Review with Taronga Zoo teachers to validate the content of our research instrument. We recommend that researchers in other countries validate the questionnaire by inviting a small cohort of local or national teachers to review the instrument and suggest adaptations based on local contexts. This has been added to our discussion on lines 418-423.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Braz_Sousa_responses_to_reviewers.docx .docx

pone.0312680.s004.docx (2.1MB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

José Gutiérrez-Pérez

11 Oct 2024

Teacher experiences and understanding of citizen science in Australian classrooms

PONE-D-23-42215R1

Dear Dr. Braz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

José Gutiérrez-Pérez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

José Gutiérrez-Pérez

31 Oct 2024

PONE-D-23-42215R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Braz Sousa,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. José Gutiérrez-Pérez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    pone.0312680.s001.pdf (115.7KB, pdf)
    S2 File

    (XLSX)

    pone.0312680.s002.xlsx (49.2KB, xlsx)
    S3 File

    (DOCX)

    pone.0312680.s003.docx (15KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Braz_Sousa_responses_to_reviewers.docx .docx

    pone.0312680.s004.docx (2.1MB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Some columns and rows in Supplementary Material 2 were anonymised to comply with the Ethics requirements.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES