Exploring the Intersection of Paleontology and Sustainability: Enhancing Scientific Literacy in Spanish Secondary School Students

Abstract

This study aims to assess the knowledge of geology and sustainability among 14- and 15-year-old secondary school students in Spain and to evaluate the effectiveness of active experiential methodologies in improving academic performance in these subjects. Involving 132 students, we used pre-test and post-test questionnaires for data collection, with both control and experimental groups. Our findings showed that integrating Earth history, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and public speaking enhances scientific literacy by fostering problem-solving and interdisciplinary understanding. The study highlights the importance of integrating scientific methods, revealing a preference for experimental approaches over traditional methods among students; however, when the results are analyzed independently by topic, similar results are obtained with active and traditional teaching methodologies. Therefore, a holistic and flexible approach not only meets the requirements of modern curricula but also helps students address complex global challenges.

1. Introduction

In recent years, interest in scientific literacy has grown thanks to, among other reasons, didactic research and the development of new educational methodologies [1,2,3]. In the field of Earth science, Earth history encompasses and connects various concepts related to life and planet Earth. This content focuses on evolution, the constantly changing environment, climatology, and the internal and external dynamics of the Earth, as well as extinctions and radiations of life [1]. This allows the integration and correlation of knowledge about how life and the terrestrial environment have evolved and interacted [4,5,6]. Comprehensive scientific literacy encompasses beyond mere knowledge of scientific principles. It extends to grasping the wider dimensions of science, including comprehending the essence of the scientific method and acknowledging the ramifications of scientific and technological progress on society [7,8,9].

For strong scientific literacy, an understanding of educational constructivism is fundamental. According to Bächtold (2013) [10], active participation and inquiry-based learning must be encouraged for a deeper understanding of scientific concepts. Furthermore, constructivism recognizes students’ prior knowledge [11], promotes critical thinking and problem-solving competencies [12], and reflects the collaborative nature of scientific inquiry [13]. In addition, it cultivates intrinsic motivation and lifelong applicable competencies [14,15].

Scientific literacy can no longer be understood in isolation from the planetary emergency we are currently experiencing and must therefore be imbued with the spirit of the 2030 Agenda, committed to a sustainable world through the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs are a crucial initiative to address the environmental and social challenges facing our planet in the 21st century [16,17]. In fact, each geological time has aspects that relate to sustainability [18]. To give some coarse examples, in the Precambrian eon, the formation of the Earth’s crust and the emergence of the first life forms laid the foundation for the sustainability of life on Earth [19]. This is the beginning of life and the origin that we must not lose sight of to understand the later complexities of life. Understanding the geology of different eras is indispensable for safeguarding future natural resources. During the Paleozoic era, the emergence of animals with hard skeletons and the explosion of marine life laid the foundation for terrestrial life [20], while in the Mesozoic era, significant climatic and geological changes affected life on Earth [21]. Understanding these processes is essential to identify mineral and energy resources that should be used sustainably and promote the sustainability of geological resources. Finally, in the Cenozoic age, mammals dominated, and the first hominids emerged [22]. Understanding the timelines of major changes in terrestrial conditions and major biodiversity explosions or extinctions provides a holistic time-scale, understanding that is essential from the perspective of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Once again, a simple example can help to convey this significance: it is essential to understand that fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, over millions of years, making them limited resources, and we risk depleting them in a few hundred years. Added to this are the environmental consequences of burning these fuels. This helps to understand the importance of understanding the evolution of life on Earth and identifying natural resources that must be exploited sustainably.

This work aims to analyze the incorporation of ESD in secondary education by establishing a link between the SDGs and the evolutionary history of the Earth. It aims to analyze how providing students with a deeper understanding of the origin of our natural resources and the wealth of biodiversity that characterizes our planet linked to sustainability issues improves students’ interest in parallel to sustainability competencies. In this field, geoscience plays a crucial role in addressing sustainability challenges across various fronts. It directly intersects with environmental concerns, climate issues, geohazards, energy sources, and the management of natural resources. The teacher and students can explore different perceptions and interpretations around geoscience, environment, and sustainability [23].

As mentioned above, understanding geologic time units is crucial for understanding the evolution of the Earth, the classification of life, and environmental changes. In some countries, such as Australia [24] and France [25], the updated secondary school curriculum integrates education for sustainability with the Earth Sciences. However, recent educational materials and the updated curriculum in Spain (Organic Law 3/2020 LOMLOE), lack explicit references to the incorporation of a meaningful link between Earth’s historical evolution and SDGs [26]. Its absence underscores a notable gap in recognizing the importance of integrating geologic time concepts in education, despite its fundamental role in understanding Earth history and the evolution of life [27]. Therefore, there is a good opportunity to correct scientific literacy in formal education, as proposed in this paper.

Several works by other authors conclude that the contributions of paleontology constitute essential content in the organization of any educational curriculum oriented toward scientific literacy [6,28] and that these should be part of the secondary school curriculum since describing, explaining, and giving solutions to a problem favors the correct scientific literacy [29,30,31]. Moreover, integrating these elements for a holistic view of the Earth system favors interest and fascination towards the subject [32].

As aforementioned, previous studies have shown that formal education often does not adequately address issues related to sustainability and geology, resulting in a low level of knowledge and understanding among students in these fields. This leads us to formulate our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis H1. 

Secondary school students have little knowledge about geology and sustainability, and this knowledge is poorly interrelated.

It has also been noted in this introduction that constructivist studies have found that students who engage in active methodologies tend to have better academic performance, a deeper understanding of concepts, and greater satisfaction with their learning experience, which leads us to formulate the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis H2. 

An active experiential methodology is expected to generate a significant improvement in the learning of geology and sustainability compared to a control group taught through traditional lectures.

In relation to the above hypothesis, the objectives of this work are:

(a)

To evaluate the basic knowledge about geology and sustainability and the capability of interrelating both areas among secondary school students.

(b)

To investigate the effectiveness of active experiential methodologies in improving academic performance in geology and sustainability in contrast to traditional methodologies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Educational Context

The legislative context of application in the classroom is the LOMLOE law (Ley Orgánica de Modificación de la Ley Orgánica de Educación, in Spanish) in Spain. Students of Biology and Geology who are 12–16 years old must acquire a series of basic knowledge that allows them to understand the biological and geological processes that occur on our planet, as well as to know and value the environment in which they live. Some of this knowledge includes biodiversity and its importance, the structure and functioning of ecosystems, geological processes, the prevention of geological hazards, and health connected with the environment: the effects that human activity can have on the environment and human health, and the measures that can be taken to minimize these effects [33]. To view these concepts holistically, it is important to place them within the stratigraphic scale, which divides the Earth’s history into geological time units, organized into periods [34]. These contents, as in [35], exist in other countries, such as France, India, Italy, Morocco, and Portugal. Therefore, although our study context is Spain, we consider the results useful in other educational contexts.

2.2. Characterization of the Sample

The research presented here has been carried out in the secondary education context in Spain. The school and students were chosen by convenience (non-probabilistic and non-random sampling), considering the availability of students who were able to take part in an intervention in the limited availability of geology classes in Valencia (Spain). The study was carried out with 132 students aged 14–15 (71 males and 61 females) in their third year of compulsory secondary education in a Valencian school (SE, Spain). The students belong to five classes of 25–30 students each, distributed into one control group (30 students) and four experimental groups (25, 25, 26, and 27 students, respectively).

2.3. Characterization of the Didactic Intervention

A teaching sequence was designed with the aim of promoting geology and paleontology literacy in relation to sustainability issues. The sequence consisted of eight sessions, lasting fifty minutes each (Figure 1). The first session involved both the control and the experimental groups completing pre-test questionnaires to establish baseline knowledge. The second session featured a master class on deep time for the control group, while the experimental group prepared for a scientific congress on Earth’s history and environmental issues. Subsequent sessions alternated between master classes for the control group on geological epochs and corresponding activities for the experimental group, including research, poster creation, and oral presentations.

For the production of the scientific poster, the students were given the indications shown in Figure 2. Students had to carry out this part in small groups (3–4 students) to promote collaborative work. The poster comprised various sections: a concise title reflecting the study’s focus, an introduction providing background and research objectives, a detailed description of materials and methods for replication, visual aids enhancing comprehension of results, a clear presentation of findings, an interpretative discussion comparing results with existing literature, and a conclusion drawing insights from the study. Additionally, a section on important references acknowledged sources and bolstered research credibility. The eighth session concluded with a post-test to evaluate participants’ knowledge and motivation levels.

This post-test served as a crucial evaluation tool to assess the impact and effectiveness of the learning interventions introduced during the study. While the core elements of the post-test echoed the format of the pre-test to measure the participants’ retained knowledge and comprehension, the inclusion of qualitative questions provided a deeper insight into the motivational aspects influenced by the learning experiences. The qualitative questionnaire consisted of six questions with different purposes; from the first to the sixth, respectively, these purposes were: gauging overall satisfaction and perception of different methodologies, identifying preferred components to inform future instructional design, identifying areas for improvement and potential barriers to learning, assessing perceived impact on learning outcomes, understanding the influence of the experience on initial interest and motivation, and gathering suggestions for enhancing the learning experience.

2.4. PrePost Questionnaire Design

To investigate the first hypothesis, which states that secondary school students have little previous knowledge of geology and sustainability and this knowledge is poorly interrelated, a questionnaire was used. In order to implement this quantitative methodology, the questionnaire was chosen as a tool to address students’ preconceptions about the topic “Earth History and Sustainability”.

Furthermore, to address the second hypothesis, where we expect that an active experimental methodology will generate a significant improvement in learning compared to traditional lecture-based teaching, the same questionnaire was fulfilled by students after the teaching sequence finished.

A mixed methodology combining quantitative and qualitative analysis was used in order to comprehensively address the knowledge of students and the perception of the methodology under investigation. This approach allowed us to gain a deep and holistic understanding, not only of student’s previous knowledge, but also of whether student learning had been meaningful, considering their attitudes and motivations during the process. Employing a dual approach provided a more holistic understanding, assessing not just what students knew and learned, but also why and how they engaged. By combining these methodologies, the study gained a richer perspective, facilitating more informed conclusions and recommendations regarding the multifaceted nature of the educational experience.

A PrePost questionnaire was designed with a common block focusing on the knowledge of geology, sustainability, and their relationships. The post-test had, in addition, a series of questions on the methodology itself. The general objectives of the questionnaire are as follows:

• To approach the (previous and post) knowledge of students regarding geology (History of Earth and Life) and sustainability and their interconnection in relation to a teaching sequence.
• To approach the perception of two different methodologies carried out with students.

The design of the questionnaire considered its usefulness, both to understand the students’ prior and post ideas and knowledge and to subsequently evaluate the hypotheses by means of a post-test questionnaire [36]. One of the most used methods in this kind of didactic research is a PrePost design with a traditional control group [37,38,39]. The pre-test and post-test questionnaires were identical, but the post-test included some qualitative questions for the students to assess their experience. These questions are classified, according to the Martin et al. (2007) scheme [40]. That is, there are structured question, which offer predefined answer options, such as multiple choice, short answer, or dichotomous questions. There are also unstructured questions, which are open-ended, used to collect qualitative information about the learning experience based on an experiential approach (qualitative part). Here, students can express their opinions [41].

To guarantee the quality of the questionnaire, the guidelines of Solbes (1990) [42] were followed, which emphasize the importance of the questionnaire being reasonable, comprehensible, sensitive to variations in the phenomenon measured, and with clearly defined components. To ensure its validity and reliability, the questionnaire was subjected to expert judgment in Geology and Earth History [43]. In addition, a researcher in the didactics of experimental sciences carried out the validation, and five experts in the didactics of experimental sciences reviewed the questionnaires and gave their corrections. The opinion of three ESO students who did not participate in the study was also sought to verify the comprehensibility and clarity of the questionnaire.

The process of validating the questionnaire ensured its robustness and credibility for the study. However, beyond confirming its clarity and comprehensibility, feedback was also sought for possible improvements. The opinions of the three secondary school students not only validated the accessibility of the questionnaire, but also helped to identify areas where adjustments could improve its effectiveness. This collaborative approach, involving both experts and students, helped to incorporate diverse perspectives, so that the questionnaire was accurate and ensured its effectiveness in eliciting meaningful responses from participants.

The questionnaire is structured in three distinct sections and has a total of 12 questions. The first section deals with geology concepts (10 points), the second one focuses on sustainability concepts (10 points), and, finally, the third section aims to establish an integration between geology and sustainability concepts in a coherent and cohesive manner (10 points). In each of the parts, students can acquire a maximum of 10 points, and the overall score of the questionnaire is 30 points. The initial queries (first and second) pertain to geological time, particularly focusing on spatial perception. The third inquiry delves into a more abstract exploration concerning the definition of geological time. Questions four and five aim to sequence various biological and geological occurrences chronologically, with the former being a general ordering of events and the latter providing a more detailed classification, highlighting the geological eras. Concerning sustainability, question six addresses the fundamental concept, while question seven assesses familiarity with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Questions eight and nine aim to elicit solutions for environmental preservation at local and global levels, respectively. The subsequent section of the questionnaire adopts a competency-based approach, emphasizing the ability to correlate geological concepts with sustainability extensively. Question ten focuses on reasoning through cause-and-effect relationships among five events, linking past occurrences to subsequent situations (e.g., associating the emergence of cyanobacteria with the development of an oxygenic atmosphere). Question eleven seeks to establish connections between these situations from question six and current environmental issues. Finally, question twelve prompts participants to link landscapes with relevant SDGs that could impact said landscapes.

The questionnaire was prepared to be filled in via on paper, except in two cases of students with specific needs (one student with dysgraphia, and one with motor difficulties in the hand), where Google Forms was used. In these cases, it could be completed using a laptop. The questionnaire was completed in regular sessions with the teacher who was going to participate in the subsequent teaching intervention. The questionnaire was thus integrated into the learning–teaching context of the chosen subject. Students responded to the survey in Spanish. In the annex, we present the translated version questionnaire.

Table 1. Structure of the questionnaire, including correct answers and scores assigned for the different concepts measured.

Field	Questions	Concepts
Geological concepts	Q1 & Q2	Geological time
	Q3	Earth history (definition)
	Q4 & Q5	Order of historical events Q4 (more general) Q5 (in more depth)
Sustainability concepts	Q6	Concept of sustainability
	Q7	Knowledge about SDGs
	Q8	Local measures to protect the environment
	Q9	Global measures to protect the environment
Relationship between Earth history and sustainability	Q10	Relationship (cause-consequence) between five sentences that connect the past with the present
	Q11	Matching each sentence (from the previous question) with at least one environmental problem
	Q12	Relationship between four geological landscapes and SDGs

shows the structure of the questionnaire in three parts. The first one, geology, is assessed with questions one to five; then, the part of sustainability corresponds to questions six to nine, and finally, the relationship between both is shown in questions ten to twelve). Some questions, such as Q1, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, and Q11, measure general knowledge; others, such as Q2, Q5, Q8, Q9, Q10, and Q12, are designed to deepen the concepts in order to find out the degree of knowledge of the students.

2.5. Questionnaire Analysis Design

For the quantitative analysis of the questionnaire, the results derived from the PrePost test can be analyzed in several ways to determine if there has been an increase in learning. To complete the distribution of points by concepts, a proposal was made, which was subsequently validated by five experts (secondary school teachers, paleontologists, and researchers in didactics), and the relevant modifications were made to improve and adjust the score, according to the complexity of the question.

Table 2. Assessment of the responses in the questionnaire.

Field	Question	Correct Answer	Score (Points)	Partial Part (Points)	Total (Points)
Geology	Q1	c	1	10	30
	Q2	5	1
	Q3	b	2
	Q4a	1C, 2A, 3E, 4D, 5F, 6B	1
	Q4b	Assessed regarding the ability to name aspects of the formation of the Earth (from the incandescent state to the cooling of the crust). The evolutionary order of the species in the images will be considered.	2
	Q5	Precambrian: a, f, i, m Paleozoic: c, g Mesozoic: b, d, l, n Cenozoic: e, h, j, k	3
Sustainability	Q6	- Associate photosynthesis with the formation of oxygen. - Associate the origin of petroleum with the fossilisation of organic marine debris. - Associate the circulation of ocean currents with the position of the continents (apart or together). - Relate that the increase in temperature may be due to the greenhouse gasses released by a volcano. - Name the first multicellular beings that were formed from the first cell for whom the most suitable environment was aquatic.	2	10
	Q7	- Microplastics: 2 and 5 - Vehicles using petrol or diesel: 2 - Rising global temperature: 4 - Climate change: 1, 3, and 4	2
	Q8	For a maximum score, students should name the biological systems and the need to preserve or maintain the balance.	3
	Q9	Maximum score if they name all SDGs as being related. Half the maximum score if they name those most closely related to the environment.	3
Relationship between Earth history and sustainability	Q10	Precambrian: 7, 13; Paleozoic: 14; Mesozoic: 15; Cenozoic: 13, 15	4	10
	Q11	Scoring based on the complexity of the response. The complete answer must explain at least one measure within each field: home, family, and school.	4
	Q12	Scoring based on the complexity of the response. The full answer should explain at least one measure within each field: partnerships, government, or global agreement.	2

shows the categorization of the answers that were considered correct, as well as the distribution of points.

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) is one of the most frequent of this kind of study [40,41]. The ANOVA deals with the raw scores derived from the pre-test and post-test data. It checks whether the students’ results in the group in which the educational intervention is carried out are more improved from the pre-test to the post-test than the scores of students in the control group. To analyze the data, we used the repeated measures ANOVA test. This parametric statistical test allows us to control for these individual differences by measuring the same subjects over multiple time points or conditions. This helps in evaluating the impact of an intervention or teaching method while taking into account the inherent variability among students [39]. Besides, didactic work frequently involves studying the progress or changes in a group of learners over time. This test is accurate to track these changes and determine if there are statistically significant differences in performance or learning outcomes as they progress through a teaching methodology. Finally, it is important for the reduction of error variance, because by using the same subjects in different conditions, some variability caused by individual differences is removed.

In the realm of educational research, the combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies served as a cornerstone for a comprehensive and holistic understanding of pedagogical interventions. While quantitative analyses yielded numerical data and offered statistical insights into the efficacy of teaching methodologies, qualitative assessments provided an invaluable narrative dimension, delving into the experiential aspects of the educational process.

In this section of the paper, we focus on the qualitative aspect of our study, examining a test specifically designed to gather students’ subjective perspectives and insights regarding the methodology implemented within the classroom. This qualitative test, consisting of open-ended questions and prompts, aimed to capture the essence of the students’ experiences, perceptions, and reflections on the pedagogical strategies employed [42,43,44].

Table 3. Qualitative questions used in the post-test and expected replies.

Question 1	How would you rate the overall experience?
Expected replies	Positive, negative, neutral, or detailed feedback.
Question 2	Which parts of the experience did you like the most? Why?
Expected replies	Employing an open question format, responses were gathered, organized into thematic groups, and analyzed to classify and grasp various students’ perceptions.
Control group replies	- Positive evaluation of the theoretical explanation. - Uninteresting topic. - Motivation about dynamism and participation. - Interest in the relationship between geology and sustainability. - Interest in the topic: History of the Earth. - Pleased with the project as a whole.
Experimental group replies	- Motivation for making the scientific poster. - Positive evaluation of the oral presentation. - Pleasure with the possibility of choosing the event in the relevant era. - Interest in the bibliographic search. - Favorable assessment of prior explanations. - Interest in the relationship between geology and sustainability. - Interest in the topic: History of the Earth. - Motivation in the cooperative part. - Pleased with the entire project.
Question 3	What aspects of the experience did you dislike the most? Why?
Expected replies	Employing an open question format, responses were gathered, organized into thematic groups, and analyzed to classify and grasp various students’ perceptions.
Control group replies	- Nothing. - Discomfort with group work. - Dislike of taking an exam. - Lack of concern for environmental goals. - Negative perception of oral presentations. - Aversion to bibliographic research. - Dislike of creating scientific posters. - Unhappiness with individual ODS work. - Lack of interest in the topic.
Experimental group replies	- Nothing, positive work evaluation. - Displeasure with lengthy master classes. - Dislike of taking an exam. - Disinterest in ODS debates. - Aversion to taking notes during lessons. - Lack of interest in the topic: History of Earth.
Question 4	How much do you think the experience has improved your skills or knowledge in the topic covered? Elaborate on your answer.
Expected reply	Positive acknowledge, improvements, constructive feedback.
Question 5	Before starting the experience, were you interested in the topic? Did the experience contribute to increasing your interest and motivation towards the topic?
Expected responses	Increased/decreased interest and motivation, initial interest maintained, no change in interest.
Question 6	Is there anything you would have removed or changed in the teaching experience? If yes, describe possible changes or improvements.
Expected responses	Learners can propose specific modifications or improvements based on their experience.

describes the qualitative questions that were asked of the students in the post-test questionnaire. Responses to each question were categorized into different sub-categories, shown in Table 3.

3. Results

This section shows the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis in relation to the objectives of the research.

3.1. Quantitative Analysis

The following section presents the quantitative results obtained from data analysis conducted to examine the variables and relationships pertinent to our study’s objectives. This section aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the numerical findings derived from statistical analyses performed on the collected data.

Regarding the first hypothesis,

Table 4. Quantitative results of the pre-test.

Field	Mean Out of 10	Median	Standard Deviation
Geological concepts	4.14	4	1.77
Sustainability concepts	4.03	3.5	2.25
Relationship between Earth history and sustainability	5.17	4.8	7.32

shows students’ marks in the quantitative pre-test in each field. In Supplementary Materials we show the questionnaire as the students received it. The results for the geology and sustainability part of the test reflected considerable variability in individual scores, suggesting disparity in the level of knowledge within the group. The sustainability part had a skewed distribution towards lower scores compared to the geology part. Analysis of the relationship between geology and sustainability indicated participants seemed to have a better understanding of how these two fields are intertwined. However, the median of this relationship showed that there is a significant proportion of participants whose scores were below the mean. Even more remarkable was the standard deviation, which indicated a wide variability in scores and proposed a very heterogeneous understanding of this relationship.

The pre-test results highlight the uneven baseline knowledge among students. In the geology section, scores were more evenly distributed, suggesting that participants had a more consistent level of understanding in this area. In contrast, the sustainability section showed a tendency towards lower scores, indicating that many participants were less familiar with sustainability concepts. When examining the relationship between geology and sustainability, the high standard deviation underscores this variability, showing that while some participants excelled, others struggled significantly.

In the first phase, the comprehensive test covering all 30 items of the questionnaire (global analysis) was analyzed (

Table 5. Repeated measures ANOVA study (global and specific questionnaire PrePost comparison).

A. Global questionnaire PrePost comparison
Within-subject Effects
	Sum of Squares	df 1	Mean Square	F 2	p 3
PrePost	3699.9	1	3699.94	412.50	<0.001
PrePost*Methodology	47.3	1	47.29	5.27	0.023
Residual	1166.0	130	8.97
B. Specific part of questionnaire (geology) PrePost comparison
Within-subject Effects
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p
PrePost	633.88	1	633.88	244.66	<0.001
PrePost*Methodology	6.32	1	6.32	2.44	0.121
Residual	336.81	130	2.59
C. Specific part of questionnaire (sustainability) PrePost comparison
Within-subject Effects
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p
PrePost	424.56	1	424.56	165.29	<0.001
PrePost*Methodology	8.03	1	8.03	3.12	0.079
Residual	333.92	130
D. Specific part of questionnaire (relationship between geology and sustainability) PrePost comparison
Within-subjects Effects
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p
PrePost	325.71	1	325.71	176.290	<0.001
PrePost*Methodology	1.05	1	1.05	0.568	0.452
Residual	240.18	130	1.85

¹ Degrees of freedom. ² Fisher’s F-test. ³ p-value.

A). The next phase, with reference to the second hypothesis, involved a detailed analysis of its three distinct sections, each of which was originally assigned a maximum of 10 items (Table 5B–D). For both the global and specific analysis, we first ran a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to ensure the normality of the data. For all parts, except for sustainability, we saw that the data fulfilled this condition of normality, so a mixed ANOVA was performed with one within-subject factor (pre-test/post-test) and one between-subject factor (control methodology/experimental methodology). For the sustainability data, the distribution of the data was not normal, but as there was no non-parametric alternative for this type of design, ANOVA was also used. Given the robustness of ANOVA to violations of normality, we expect that the inferences made are not inappropriate. This methodological approach provided a comprehensive understanding of the different facets of the questionnaire, allowing for a nuanced assessment of participants’ responses.

The following analysis was performed based on Table 5:

• For the global part of the questionnaire, the main effect of the PrePost factor was significant (F (1, 130) = 412.5; p < 0.001), that is, overall, participants have increased their knowledge on the topic. The interaction between the factors PrePost and methodology was also significant (F (1, 130) = 5.27; p = 0.023). Therefore, the differences between the pre-test and post-test were significantly greater in the experimental methodology than in the control methodology. The experimental methodology has produced more learning overall.
• Related to, specifically, the geology part, the main effect of the PrePost factor was significant (F (1, 130) = 244.66; p < 0.001), that is, overall, participants have increased their knowledge on the topic. The interaction between the factors PrePost and methodology, however, was not significant (F (1, 130) = 2.44; p = 0.121). Therefore, the differences between the pre-test and post-test were not significantly greater in the experimental methodology than in the control methodology.
• Regarding the sustainability part, the main effect of the PrePost factor was significant (F (1, 130) = 165.29; p < 0.001), that is, overall, participants have increased their knowledge on the topic. The interaction between the factors PrePost and methodology, however, was not significant (F (1, 130) = 3.12; p = 0.079). Consequently, the differences between the pre-test and post-test were not significantly greater in the experimental methodology than in the control methodology.
• Finally, regarding the relation between the “geology” and “sustainability” parts, the main effect of the PrePost factor was significant (F (1, 130) = 176.290; p < 0.001), that is, overall, participants have increased their knowledge on the topic. The interaction between the factors PrePost and methodology, however, was not significant (F (1, 130) = 0.568; p = 0.452). Consequently, the differences between the pre-test and post-test were not significantly greater in the experimental methodology than in the control methodology.

Overall, the main effect of the PrePost factor (the results of the questionnaire before and after the experiment) was significant in all sections, indicating an overall increase in participants’ knowledge of the respective topics after participating in the control and experimental methodologies. However, the interaction between the PrePost and methodology factors (the results of the questionnaire before and after the experiment, and those compared between the two methodologies) was significant for the overall part of the questionnaire. This means that, although both methodologies led to an overall increase in knowledge, the experimental methodology resulted in significantly larger differences between the pre-test and post-test scores compared to the control methodology. Therefore, the experimental methodology appears to be more effective in promoting learning compared to the control methodology in an overall comprehensive assessment.

Performing another analysis, in which the specific parts (geology, sustainability, and relationship between the two) are separated, the main effect of the PrePost factor was significant, indicating an overall increase in knowledge for both methodologies. The interaction between the PrePost factor and the methodology was not significant, especially in the Relationship questionnaire, where the p-value is not significant at 0.45. This implies that, although both methodologies contributed to improving the results of the aptitude test, the interaction between the PrePost factor and the methodology was not significant.

3.2. Qualitative Analysis

This study segment aimed to capture the qualitative essence of students’ engagement with pedagogical approaches, highlighting their interactions, preferences, encountered difficulties, and subjective interpretations of learning outcomes. By facilitating students’ expression of thoughts and observations, this qualitative analysis aimed to offer depth and context alongside the quantitative findings. The structured inquiry involved purposeful questions intending to uncover diverse facets of students’ learning experiences, spanning from overall satisfaction and specific preferences to perceived knowledge and skill enhancements, shifts in interest and motivation, and suggestions for refining the learning experience.

This section provides a synthesis of student responses obtained from the qualitative questionnaire that was added to the post-test. As we can observe in

Table 6. Students’ responses obtained from the qualitative questionnaire (post-test).

How do students rate the methodologies applied in their group?
Control group	Experimental group
69% rated their experience in the mid-range. 31% reported moderate satisfaction.	81% rated their experience positively.
Preferred aspects of the experience
Control group	Experimental group
28.6% “Theoretical explanation” 3.6% “Uninteresting topic” 14.2% “Dynamism and participation” 21.4% “Relationship between geology and sustainability” 28.6% “Interest in the topic: History of the Earth” 3.6% “Pleased with the project as a whole”.	26.5% “Making the scientific poster” 16.9% “Oral presentation” 6.6% “Possibility of choosing the topic within the era that had been assigned to them” 14% “Bibliographic research” 2.9% “Previous explanations to each session” 5.9% “Relationship between geology and sustainability” 11% “Interest in the topic: History of the Earth” 8.1% “Cooperative work” 8.1% “Pleased with the project as a whole”.
Least favorable aspects of the experience
Control group	Experimental group
40% “Nothing, positive work evaluation” 24% “Lengthy master classes” 16% “Displeasure with doing an exam” 8% “ SDG debates” 8% “Taking notes during lessons” 4% “Lack of interest in the topic: History of Earth”.	27.7% “Nothing, positive work evaluation” 7.2% “Group work” 20.5% “Displeasure with doing an exam” 2.4% “Future-oriented purpose related to the environment” 8.4% “Oral presentations” 13.3% “Bibliographic research” 4.8% “Scientific posters” 14.5% “Individual work related to ODS” 1.2% “Lack of interest in the topic: History of Earth”.
Enhancement in skills and knowledge regarding the discussed topic
Control group	Experimental group
The students showed lower overall ratings, with no students choosing the lowest rating of 1 and only a few selecting the highest rating of 5.	A notable number of students rated the experience with scores of 3 and 4, respectively, indicating moderate-to-high improvement. Thirty-three percent of students rated it with the highest score of 5, signifying a significant positive impact.
Exploring initial interest development and evolution
Control group	Experimental group
Relatively worse initial interest levels (37% positive interest) but still had a substantial portion (40.80%) lacking interest. Post-experience, there was a notable enhancement in positive interest of 81.50%.	Initially, 51% lacked interest in the topic. However, post-experience, a substantial transformation occurred, with a staggering rise in positive interest of 89.60%.
Improvement proposals
Control group	Experimental group
64.2% satisfaction. 25% more dynamic and practical classes. 3.6% further explanation on Earth’s history. 3.6% removing the exam component entirely.	84% satisfaction with the experience. 8% removing the exam component. 4% replacing scientific poster creation with a more extensive presentation; 1% suggested substituting it with a video. 3% extended project duration to delve deeper into the subject.

, the student ratings for the control and experimental methodologies provided insight into their perceptions of the learning experiences. It must be taken into account that the second question, about preferred aspects, was an open question. Each student may have given opinions that are classified into two different groupings, so a count of each of the opinions has been made individually. The percentage has been extracted from the total opinions, not from the total number of students. Referring to the third question, in the same way as the previous question, different categories are established. Despite differences in perceptions, maintaining uniformity in assessment formats was crucial for didactic research, necessitating the implementation of the same exam parameters for both groups. Then, responses to the question regarding the improvement of skills or knowledge in the discussed topic yielded insights into the effectiveness of the methodologies used by both the control and experimental groups. The results suggest a less consistent perception of improvement in skills or knowledge, indicating a comparatively lower impact of the methodology used in the control group. The question about initial interest and its evolution through the educational experience scrutinizes the methodology’s efficacy. It assesses initial interest levels and whether the experience positively impacted participants’ motivation. The comparison between Methodology 1 (control) and Methodology 2 (experimental) reveals distinct shifts in students’ interest levels before and after the educational experience. In the final query regarding potential modifications in the didactic experience, percentages were calculated based on student responses.

4. Discussion

The first objective of the study was evaluating secondary school students’ basic knowledge of geology and sustainability and to assess the interrelation between these subjects. However, the results revealed a significant lack of a holistic vision among the students. The topics of geology and sustainability are often treated in a fragmented and isolated manner, rather than being integrated into a cohesive understanding. This fragmented approach suggests that students are learning about these subjects isolated, without appreciating the connections and interdependencies between them. Addressing this issue requires a more integrated teaching approach that emphasizes the interconnectedness of geology and sustainability, fostering a comprehensive understanding that reflects the complex nature of these fields. Other authors have insisted in this necessary integration of sustainability in any subject or issue of the curriculum, recalling the holistic vision requested to achieve the 2030 Agenda [45,46,47,48].

Additionally, in the second objective, we investigated the effectiveness of active experiential methodologies in improving academic performance in geology and sustainability. According to the results obtained, both groups (control and experimental) obtained good results in the post-test compared to the pre-test. Regarding quantitative data analysis, although both groups improved their knowledge, depending on whether the results are compared globally (combining the three parts of the questionnaire) or in specific parts (each part separately), the trend that appeared in specific groups of data (regardless of the methodology, the students learned similarly) disappeared when these groups were combined for the overall data (the experimental methodology was more effective). This situation, known as Simpson’s paradox or the Yule-Simpson effect, frequently occurs in the social sciences [49,50,51]. While the overall data may suggest a clear advantage for the experimental methodology, a closer examination by separate topics shows that the effectiveness of teaching methods may change depending on the specific learning objectives or content being addressed. In addition, individual student characteristics and preferences may also influence the impact of different teaching strategies on learning outcomes.

As for the qualitative analysis, the results showed that students appreciated the experimental methodologies because they felt their knowledge of the past can help to understand the environmental problems. Working by competencies helps students to interpret, understand and adapt to the world in which we live [28,52]. These results showed that the participating students are concerned about environmental issues, as other studies manifested [47,53]. The positive evaluations of the oral presentations highlighted the importance of communication skills and presentation techniques; this peer learning motivates and helps students to improve, as was the case in other works [54]. In addition, the autonomy provided in the choice of topics related to the assigned period, as well as an evident interest in bibliographic research, was also appreciated. The comparison between Methodology 1 (control) and Methodology 2 (experimental), in a qualitative way, revealed notable changes in the students’ interest levels before and after the educational experience. This type of active learning stimulates active citizenship and to discover local and global needs for sustainable development, future, and lifestyles [53,55,56,57]. Student performance increases significantly when there is a variety of teaching strategies, so it is understandable that students who were already assessed with the experimental methodology disagree with the test in a higher percentage than the control group. All these aspects are integrated into the constructivist model in scientific methodology, as Pascual (2019) [58] showed, which is a good option for improving their reasoning. Apart from its educational value, as the results showed, it offers high motivation, even more when incorporating socioscientific issues [59,60], as exposed in our qualitative results.

The responses obtained from both the control group and the experimental group showed the diverse perspectives and preferences of the students regarding possible changes or improvements in the educational experience. In the control group, although the majority were also satisfied, a significant proportion expressed a desire for more dynamic, hands-on classes rather than traditional lectures. Dissatisfaction stemmed from the methodology and structure of the learning process, particularly regarding the duration of master classes and the perceived necessity of exams. Conversely, in the experimental group, a lack of interest in Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) was observed, potentially due to students’ previous experiences in multiple subjects, leading to diminished enthusiasm from repetitiveness. This experience, held towards the end of the course, might have contributed to a sense of saturation regarding SDG-related activities. Each methodology can have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the context, so the best solution is not one or another, but a mix of them [61,62,63]. In contrast, in the experimental group, a large majority of the students expressed satisfaction with the experience, indicating a strong preference for maintaining the existing structure. However, a notable subgroup provided constructive suggestions for improvement, especially focused on modifying evaluation methods and project formats. The desire to extend the length of the project to explore the topic more thoroughly recommends a strong interest among some students in delving deeper into the material. The inclusion of sustainability in all possible educational spheres has been continuously demanded by different entities [64]. Likewise, it has been noted that it is not effectively carried out and that specific teacher training is essential to facilitate this [45,65]. In this sense, it is essential to design proposals from different disciplines that serve as an example of good practice [63].

This article shows how a proposal for the inclusion of sustainability in relation to the teaching of geological and paleontological aspects can be fruitful. Specifically, the proposal, which is based on SDG 4 of quality education, delves into the knowledge of the planet (SDG 14 and SDG 15) from a time-scale point of view, relating it to SDG 13, climate action, by delving into how fossil fuels are a very precious and scarce resource that took millions of years to be formed. In relation to climate change, it is worth mentioning that several studies carried out with secondary school students show that they are very interested and worried about the climate crisis but lack the necessary knowledge to engage and take the necessary action [47,66]. In this sense, the perspective that history of the Earth and life education can offer is unique in its ability to provide a global view that includes the temporal and not only the spatial factor, which allows for a holistic understanding, as demanded by sustainability education. This approach can also indirectly address SDGs related to responsible production and consumption (SDG12) and affordable and clean energy (SDG7), etc., which can greatly enrich possible teaching proposals. We agree with Montero-Pau et al. (2020) [67] that a polyhedric approach to complex problems makes scientific literacy more robust. A global perspective is essential when approaching problems from the prism of sustainability, and Education for Sustainability (ESD) can train citizens capable of distinguishing relevant information. In this sense, the input that geology provides is extremely valuable because it is the only subject in the school curriculum that focuses on the time perspective of some of the resources that we take for granted but that are absolutely precious and limited. Of course, the Science-Technology-Society (STS) perspective makes more sense than ever when approaching these questions in the classroom. Embedding the curriculum in sustainability means, therefore, that studying, for example, the Carboniferous, should not be limited to knowing when it took place and what organisms lived there, but also what implications it had on the planet and what implications it has for human beings today.

There are a number of limitations or possible improvements that we would like to highlight. Future studies could benefit from integrating qualitative methodologies, such as participant and non-participant observation and action research, alongside the use of questionnaires. This multidimensional approach would not only validate the findings from questionnaires but also provide diverse and effective strategies.

The general approach of the research could be extrapolated to other disciplines and subjects present in the educational curriculum, regardless of the differences that may arise between different countries or educational levels. However, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations that may affect the generalizability of the findings. Notably, the limited sample size constrains the robustness of the results, as a larger and more diverse sample could yield different outcomes. Additionally, the narrow geographic focus of the analysis further restricts its applicability, as regional factors may influence the variables under study. Consequently, these limitations suggest that the results underscore the need for future studies with expanded sample sizes and broader geographic scopes.

5. Conclusions

The study compared control and experimental methodologies in geology teaching to improve students’ knowledge and engagement through an experimental (active) versus a control (lecture) methodology. It was shown that, although both methods enhanced learning, there were no significant differences when we referenced the parts, highlighting the need for a balanced curriculum that combines theory and practice to accommodate different learning styles. Understanding these preferences is crucial to refining educational methods.

Regarding the importance of learning paleontology, it is a key discipline for understanding sustainability issues’ origins. Paleontology provides insights into Earth’s history, showcasing patterns of environmental change, species adaptation, and extinction events over millions of years. By studying past ecosystems and climate shifts, it offers valuable perspectives on the interconnections between life, Earth’s history, and contemporary sustainability challenges.

Integrating paleontology into education enables a deeper comprehension of how ecosystems have responded to environmental changes in the past. This knowledge can inform strategies for mitigating present sustainability problems. Analyzing historical patterns of biodiversity, climate fluctuations, and species adaptations can offer critical lessons for addressing contemporary challenges such as climate change, habitat loss, and biodiversity decline.

Our study demonstrates the relevance of paleontology in engaging students and underscores the consistently positive nature of their learning experiences, irrespective of the methodology employed. Within this article, we present two distinct methodological approaches, delineating the advantages and potential drawbacks associated with each. It is our recommendation that educators familiarize themselves with these approaches and consider a tailored combination based on their specific educational settings.

Sustainability education is important for addressing global challenges outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By enhancing knowledge in areas such as geology and sustainability, individuals can contribute to sustainable practices and initiatives. However, the lack of significant interaction in the Relationship questionnaire highlights a potential area for further investigation and refinement in educational approaches concerning sustainability. Understanding the interconnectedness between geology and sustainability is essential for promoting holistic sustainability education aligned with the SDGs.

One of the significant challenges faced in this study is the scarcity of geology groups in secondary education within our area. This limitation has hindered our ability to gather a representative sample size and to fully explore the intersection of paleontology and sustainability among secondary students. The lack of dedicated geology courses and groups in the curriculum has resulted in limited exposure and interest in these fields, thus impacting the overall scientific literacy of students. To address this issue, we advocate the need to expand the presence of geology in the curricula, including the introduction of specialized geology modules. In addition, much progress can be made through an extracurricular approach, promoting extracurricular clubs, and partnerships with local universities and research institutions. These initiatives could foster a deeper understanding and appreciation of geological sciences, ultimately contributing to more informed and engaged students who are better equipped to tackle sustainability challenges.