Objective: The objective of this study is to describe the development and implementation of an thematic workshop, as well as to evaluate whether the didactic mediation performed promoted changes in the public's perception regarding the human impact on nature. Theoretical Framework: It is grounded in the conception of science communication as a "social sharing of knowledge" (Bueno, 1985) and of Environmental Education as a tool for raising awareness regarding the preservation of natural resources (Wentz; Nishijima, 2011). It is also articulated with the environmental issues and mitigation methods addressed by Navajas-Valiente et al. (2026), Zhu et al. (2026), and Kumar, Singh & Sharma (2026), published in the journal Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. Method: Experience report of a qualitative and exploratory nature, based on the design and implementation of an Environmental Education thematic workshop, developed within the context of an extension course. As an evaluative instrument, a comparative analysis of the descriptions of a cartoon, elaborated by the participants before and after the didactic workshop, was used. Results and Discussion: The results revealed a significant evolution in the participants' descriptions: the initial responses, of an intuitive and macroscopic nature, centered on visible climate change and deforestation, were replaced by responses with technical and conceptual refinement, including mentions of specific pollutants, microscopic-level impacts on human health, and in-depth correlations between pollution and climate change. Research Implications: The didactic transposition of cutting-edge research brings the university closer to society, fostering socio-environmental awareness and citizenship. Originality/Value: The interdisciplinary integration of high-impact articles, mediated by accessible experiments, innovates by consolidating science as a tool for social transformation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Favarin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: