Next Article in Journal
Promoting Reading and Writing Development Among Multilingual Students in Need of Special Educational Support: Collaboration Between Heritage Language Teachers and Special Educational Needs Teachers
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality Applications for Adaptive Behavior Training in Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/educsci15081015
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Scientific Literacy in VET Health Students: The Role of Forensic Entomology in Debunking Spontaneous Generation

by
Laia Fontana-Bria
1,
Carla Quesada
1,
Ángel Gálvez
1 and
Tatiana Pina
2,*
1
Galeno—Xtart Centro Privado de Formación Profesional Sanitaria, C/Ricardo Micó, 5, 46009 Valencia, Spain
2
Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education, University of Valencia, Avda. Tarongers, 4, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 1015; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081015
Submission received: 26 May 2025 / Revised: 25 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 7 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study analyses the effectiveness of a contextualized teaching and learning sequence (TLS) based on forensic entomology (FE) to disprove the idea of spontaneous generation (SG) among students enrolled in the Higher Vocational Education and Training (VET) Cycle in Pathological Anatomy and Cytodiagnosis. Through an inquiry- and project-based learning approach, students replicate a version of Francesco Redi’s historical experiments, enabling them to engage with core scientific concepts such as the metamorphic cycle of insects and the role of entomology in forensic science. The research adopts a semiquantitative and exploratory design. It investigates: (1) whether students’ prior knowledge about FE and related biological processes is sufficient to refute SG; (2) to what extent this knowledge is influenced by their previous academic background and gender; and (3) whether a contextualized TLS can significantly enhance their conceptual understanding. The results reveal that most students begin with limited initial knowledge of FE and multiple misconceptions related to SG, irrespective of their previous study. Gender differences were observed at baseline, with women showing lower prior knowledge, but these differences disappeared after the intervention. The post-intervention data demonstrate a significant improvement in student’s ability to reject SG and explain biological processes coherently. The study highlights the importance of integrating entomology into health-related VET programs, both as a means to promote scientific literacy and correct misconceptions and as a pedagogical tool to foster critical thinking. It also highlights the potential and historically grounded methodologies to equalize learning outcomes and strengthen the scientific preparation of future healthcare professionals.

1. Introduction

The history of science provides numerous examples of how highly creative and imaginative individuals have achieved significant scientific milestones (Dogan et al., 2020). However, foundational knowledge and interdisciplinary approaches have played a crucial role in shaping such creative solutions. One notable example is the Italian physician, biologist, linguist, and poet Francesco Redi (1626–1697), who was the first to refute the historical belief in spontaneous generation (SG) at the macroscopic level. As a scholar of the classics, Redi had read Homer’s Iliad, which recounts Achilles’ fear that flies might enter the wounds of Patroclus’ corpse, producing maggots and defiling his lifeless body (Kotsias, 2002). Inspired by this passage from Book XIX of the Iliad, Redi questioned the origin of maggots in corpses and designed experiments to disprove SG (Jiménez Martínez, 2021). Through his work, detailed in Esperienze intorno alla generazione degl’insetti (Redi, 1668), he demonstrated that maggots (larvae) originated from fly eggs rather than decaying flesh, laying the foundation for rigorous scientific methodology. Later, scientists such as Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729–1799) and Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) extended this work to the microscopic level, with Pasteur ultimately providing definitive evidence against SG (Curtis et al., 2008). These pivotal experiments illustrate how empirical evidence and scientific rigor have been instrumental in overturning long-standing beliefs on SG and advancing scientific knowledge (Hejran et al., 2024).

1.1. Students’ Misconceptions About Spontaneous Generation

Despite advances in science since Redi and Pasteur’s experiments, ideas compatible with SG still persist among students and pre-service teachers. These misconceptions—broadly defined as student-held conceptions inconsistent with scientific knowledge (Yip, 1998)—resemble those once used to explain the origin of life centuries ago.
For instance, Vijapurkar and Konde (2014) identified similar misconceptions among middle school students in India, who reported the sudden appearance of life forms observed in their daily experience. These authors described a wide range of ideas among these students, including pre-Pasteur notions suggesting that certain forms of life arise spontaneously from inorganic matter. Likewise, Samarapungavan and Wiers (1997) found that 14.3% of students aged 8 to 13 in their study believed that species originate through SG from plant matter or soil. Similarly, Núñez Acosta et al. (2013) observed that pre-service students of the Primary Education degree struggled to predict primary ecological successions, particularly in scenarios involving the origin of vegetation—thus revealing persistent misconceptions when explaining the emergence of certain plants. Stahl (1992, p. 6) also reported folkloric beliefs among Israeli fifth-grade students, such us “Lice are created in people’s hats when very hot winds are blowing”.
The persistence of these misconceptions may be attributed to multiple factors, including everyday experiences that reinforce erroneous ideas, the language used in daily communications, conceptual errors in teaching materials, superficial topic coverage, inadequate classroom methodologies, and the prevalence of similar misconceptions among students and teachers (Ault, 1984; Badenhorst et al., 2015; King, 2009; Kumandaş et al., 2018; Larkin, 2012). Additional influences include the attribution of validity to popular but incorrect knowledge and the impact of mass media (Carrascosa-Alís, 2005, 2014; Stahl, 1992). These factors pose significant challenges for science education, particularly in today’s post-truth era, where misinformation spreads rapidly through mass media and social networks (Molina et al., 2021).
Such misconceptions often become deeply embedded within students’ cognitive frameworks, making them resistant to change even when confronted with structured and explicit instruction. This not only hinders the acquisition of new knowledge, but may also negatively affect students’ attitudes toward science, reducing both their interest and motivation (Guerra-Reyes et al., 2024). Therefore, identifying and addressing these misconceptions is a prerequisite for achieving meaningful conceptual, procedural and attitudinal changes.
For conceptual change to occur, students must first recognize inconsistencies between their prior knowledge and scientifically validated explanations. This process of cognitive conflict, followed by reflection, is what allows the replacement of erroneous or inaccurate ideas with scientifically sound ones (Driver, 1986, 1988; Treagust & Duit, 2008). Conceptual change requires learners to become dissatisfied with their preconceptions when confronted with evidence that contradicts them (Posner et al., 1982). However, this process is neither immediate nor spontaneous; it requires time, guided instruction, and carefully designed learning situations. Given that the same everyday observations that once supported belief in SG still occur today, these misconceptions are likely to persist unless they are explicitly and systematically addressed in educational settings.
It is also important to recognize that the persistence of misconceptions is not solely dependent on student-related factors. Teacher training and pedagogical approaches play a central role in shaping students’ conceptual frameworks. The continued reliance on transmissive teaching models, the disconnection between school science and students’ lived experiences, a decontextualized curricular content, and insufficient development of inquiry skills, among others, contribute to the entrenchment of scientific misunderstandings (Guerra-Reyes et al., 2024). Considering this, equipping educators with effective teaching strategies to challenge and replace these misconceptions remains a necessary but complex task (Treagust & Duit, 2008).

1.2. Integrating the History of Science to Foster Scientific Literacy and Address Misconceptions

Incorporating history of science (HOS) in science instruction is a valuable resource for addressing alternative conceptions and fostering conceptual change in students (McComas, 2011; Solomon et al., 1992). Scientific controversies, such as the debate between Pasteur (as detractor) and Pouchet (as defender) on SG, enhance understanding of aspects related to the nature of science (NOS) (Abd-El-Khalick, 1999, 2013; Irwin, 2000; McComas et al., 2020) and contextualize how the scientific community faced the challenges of their research and how this contributed to the construction of scientific ideas (Acevedo-Díaz et al., 2016, 2018; McComas, 2011; Raynaud, 2017). This approach not only helps to dismantle misconceptions about SG (conceptual dimension) but also strengthens procedural (methodological) and attitudinal (axiological) dimensions (Aikenhead, 1985; Duschl & Gitomer, 1991; Solbes, 2009). In fact, HOS provides a solid foundation for NOS instruction (McComas et al., 2020), as effective NOS teaching requires both conceptual engagement and critical reflection on fundamental aspects of science itself. This is best achieved through didactic scenarios specifically designed to elicit such discussions (Abd-El-Khalick, 2013; Kruse et al., 2020). In this regard, content-embedded strategies have proven more effective in fostering a more accurate understanding (Allchin, 2011; Cofré et al., 2019).
Therefore, a practical way to integrate HOS into a contextualized science teaching is through active methodologies such as inquiry-based learning (IBL) (Urdanivia Alarcon et al., 2023; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). This approach allows students, starting from a question that triggers their interest, to formulate hypotheses based on their previous conceptions, design and conduct experiments to gather evidence that confirms or refutes these hypotheses, and interpret data and draw conclusions that they then communicate to the rest of the students (Melesse et al., 2025; Pedaste et al., 2015; Urdanivia Alarcon et al., 2023). In this way, they develop scientific skills such as argumentation and critical analysis of evidence (Strat et al., 2024). Moreover, when combined with project-based learning (PBL), this approach places students as the protagonists of their own learning, fostering their autonomy, critical thinking skills, and responsibility (Kokotsaki et al., 2016; Ngereja et al., 2020). Final projects, such as the creation of a scientific poster, allow students to provide a well-defined outcome to real-world problems, applying and consolidating knowledge in meaningful contexts (Sircar et al., 2024; Wallengren Lynch, 2017).
Therefore, recreating historical experiments in the classroom, such as those carried out by Francesco Redi, can engage students by confronting them with the same questions faced by scientists centuries ago (Alisir & Irez, 2020; Byington, 2001; Cobo et al., 2022). This reinforces the idea that science is a continuous process of questioning and investigation, where validation or refutation of ideas through the scientific method drives progress. Furthermore, Redi’s experiments align with scientific methodology without being sophisticated (Rama Espejo, 2018), making knowledge accessible to all students and respecting diversity and different levels of learning in the classroom (Custodio et al., 2015). Such experiences foster conceptual changes alongside methodological and attitudinal transformations (Gil & Carrascosa, 1985; Solbes, 2009).

1.3. Scientific Education and Curricular Gaps in Vocational Education and Training

The knowledge gained by recreating Redi’s experiment to refute SG is applicable to the current Spanish curriculum of Primary Education, Compulsory Secondary Education, and Baccalaureate (Royal Decree, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). Therefore, teachers at these educational levels can identify a clear connection between the competencies established in legislation and their development through didactic experimentation. However, this connection is not as evident in Vocational Education and Training (VET), despite its practical approach, orientation towards employability, and emphasis on fostering autonomy (CEDEFOP, 2023).
At the curricular level, VET in Spain does not usually include scientific projects or activities in which students, through IBL, can experiment and test the empirical aspects of science. This absence makes the development of critical thinking more challenging in these contexts, as vocational training tends to focus primarily on technical skill acquisition rather than fostering analytical reasoning. However, studies indicate that lessons characterized by interactivity, dynamism, and active student participation not only facilitate the teacher’s work but also enhance the development of critical thinking, even in technical and vocational settings (López et al., 2023).
VET centers that, in addition to offering the Workplace Training module in external institutions, also provide intra-center training (Decree, 2022; Royal Decree, 2014), can implement their own training practices that bring research closer to students, addressing key scientific concepts. Incorporating methodologies such as IBL and PBL in these settings can strengthen students’ ability to evaluate evidence, engage in argumentation, and apply scientific reasoning to practical tasks, improving their overall preparation for professional environments.
This study focuses on VET, specifically on the Higher-Level Vocational Training Cycle in Pathological Anatomy and Cytodiagnosis (PAC), one of whose professional opportunities is that of Forensic Technician Assistant (Organic Law, 2003; Royal Decree, 2014). Technicians trained in this cycle are expected to possess the necessary skills to work in Institutes of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Sciences (Decree, 2022; Royal Decree, 2014). However, despite the rigorous training received, students often lack basic zoological knowledge, which is not addressed in the VET curriculum, as it is assumed to have been acquired in previous educational stages (Primary and Secondary Education). Consequently, although future technicians are expected to meet the competencies established in the Necropsy module (Royal Decree, 2014), the curriculum does not include specific content on Forensic Entomology (FE). This could explain why misconceptions related to SG may persist among these students. In this context, FE can only be effectively used to refute SG if teachers choose to incorporate this applied aspect of entomology into their teaching, either to extend or reinforce content and learning outcomes or to discuss and relate the origin of insects to their metamorphic cycle. By fostering active methodologies such as inquiry-based within VET programs, educators can provide students with the tools to critically evaluate scientific claims, reinforcing the importance of analytical reasoning in technical and vocational disciplines.

2. Objectives of the Study

Debunking misconceptions about SG in the general population is important, but it is crucial that they do not persist among students in the healthcare field, as these beliefs could impact their future health professional development. Given the relevance of FE and associated biological concepts in their field, it is imperative to assess and enhance these students’ understanding of SG through targeted educational interventions. In this context, strengthening scientific education in VET programs becomes even more essential.
Although numerous studies have explored misconceptions related to SG, most focus on secondary education or teacher training (see, for example, Vijapurkar & Konde, 2014). Research examining the persistence of such conceptions withing VET, especially in health-related fields, remains limited. This study seeks to fill these gaps by analyzing the impact of a contextualized teaching and learning sequence (TLS) in a Higher VET program, contributing conceptually, methodologically, and empirically to the development of science education in vocational settings. The contextualization in the TLS refers to the integration of diverse pedagogical approaches within the TLS, including the use of HOS, inquiry-based activities, and reflective practices, all of which have been shown to effectively promote a more accurate understanding of NOS (Cobo et al., 2022).
Building on these considerations, this study is guided by the following research questions:
  • Q1. Does the knowledge of these VET students about FE and associated concepts (arthropods, biological cycles, etc.) allow them to refute the existence of SG?
  • Q2. Is this knowledge influenced by their previous education and gender?
  • Q3. Does their understanding improve after participating in a contextualized TLS in which students experimentally reproduce a version of Redi’s experiments?
In response to these questions, the objectives of the study are: (i) to assess VET student’s prior knowledge of FE and associated biological concepts; (ii) to determine whether prior knowledge is influenced by student’s gender or educational background; (iii) to design and implement a contextualized TLS using Redi’s historical experiment as an inquiry-based activity; and (iv) to evaluate the effectiveness of this TLS in improving student’s understanding of SG and enhancing their NOS framework.
The working hypothesis of this study is that students’ initial knowledge of FE is generally limited, and consequently their ability to refute SG is weak, despite their studies being related to the healthcare field. This knowledge is expected to be independent of gender but influenced by their previous education and to improve significantly after engaging in a contextualized TLS, designed both to confront SG misconceptions and to enhance student NOS understanding.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Methodology and Participants

The study follows an exploratory mixed-methods design, combining qualitative data collection with semiquantitative analysis.
Participants are students enrolled in vocational training internships in the Higher VET cycle in PAC at Galeno—Xtart Centro Privado de Formación Profesional Sanitaria (VET Center in Valencia, Spain). Therefore, the sampling is non-probabilistic and based on convenience.
A total of 76 students participated over three academic years (2020–2021, 2021–2022 and 2022–2023). The intervention, based on an IBL approach and framed in a historical context (Redi’s experiment), included educator guidance and facilitated individual, small-group, and whole-class discussions.
Table 1 details the sociodemographic profile of the participants. Data from only those students who completed both the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires were analyzed. Participation in the questionnaires was voluntary, and students could withdraw at any time without consequences. To ensure privacy, we assigned numerical codes for reporting the findings.

3.2. Intervention

The contextualized TLS, titled ‘Redi 2.0’, aimed to address misconceptions about the historical scientific controversy of SG while teaching NOS. The intervention consisted of 18 face-to-face sessions, each lasting six hours, structured in four phases (Table 2). This format was integrated into the VET cycle’s curricular training activities.
During the intervention, students learned relevant historical events related to SG and were required to design and conduct a research project to refute SG. This hands-on investigation allowed them to explore entomology in general and FE in particular through an inquiry-based approach. Following the investigation, students presented their findings through a poster session, participated in a group discussion, assessed their self-perceived learning, and completed a post-intervention questionnaire to evaluate their understanding of FE and their ability to refute SG across all the proposed scenarios.

3.3. Instruments and Data Collection

The effectiveness of the TLS was assessed using a single questionnaire, administered twice (pre- and post-intervention), with minor verbal adaptations in the second application to acknowledge that the intervention had occurred (Table 3). The questionnaire contained five open-ended questions (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q6) and one mixed-format question (Q5). The first two questions assessed students’ knowledge of FE and related organisms. The remaining four questions addressed students’ conceptions about SG and its connection to insects (and thus to FE) as well as other types of organisms.

3.4. Assessment Criteria and Scoring

To establish the assessment criteria, terms or concepts in each answer were grouped into blocks based on their conceptual relevance. Thus, each block contained a set of conceptually related terms that aligned with the expected level of response (Table A1).
Subsequently, student responses were analyzed based on the quantity and quality of relevant terms or concepts used and their presence in one or more blocks. A score of 0 was assigned when the answer did not meet the defined criteria: if it did not include any of the predefined terms, it was left blank, or the student indicated ‘I don’t know’. Scores of 1, 2, or 3 were assigned depending on the number of relevant blocks mentioned. For Q5, the same scoring criteria were applied, but without predefined blocks of terms. Table A2 details the rubric used for response analysis, specifying the evaluation criteria.

3.5. Data Analysis

Two independent raters scored each student’s response using the criteria indicated in Table A1 and Table A2. Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1968; Rau & Shih, 2021) was calculated to assess the degree of agreement between raters, using the cohen.kappa function (R psych package; Revelle, 2025). A low Cohen’s kappa would suggest a need for clearer scoring criteria, while a high value (κ > 0.8) indicates reliable and consistent assessments.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure (Kaiser, 1970; Ibikunle et al., 2021) was used to determine the adequacy of the sample for factor analysis, with values over 0.7 justifying its use. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1951; Tong, 2024) was applied to test the correlation between scores using the cortest.bartlett function (R psych package). A sedimentation plot (Del Giudice, 2022) was generated using the fa.parallel function (R psych package) to determine the number of underlying factors, and Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951; Izah et al., 2024) was calculated to assess internal consistency using the alpha.cronbach function (ltm package; Rizopoulos, 2006).
Generalised Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs; Bolker, 2015) with a Gaussian distribution were applied using the glmmTMB function (R glmmTMB package, Brooks et al., 2017) to evaluate student learning throughout the intervention. The dependent variable was ‘Overall Knowledge,’ a single factor representing the sum of scores across all questions for each student, ranging from 0 to 18 (maximum score of three points on each of the six questions). Fixed effects (predictor variables) included the time of questionnaire completion (pre- and post-intervention), gender, previous education level (Intermediate VET, Higher VET, Baccalaureate or University), field of prior training (scientific or non-scientific), and relevant interactions. Random effects included the year of intervention, to account for potential interannual variability in course content or socio-political factors (e.g., the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic), and individual participant differences, to control for data dependence and inherent educational, psychological, or personal differences. The model with the lowest corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc; McQuarrie & Tsai, 1998) was selected using the dredge function (MuMIn package; Barton, 2020).
To examine the relationship between questionnaire scores and students’ self-perception of learning, a Generalized Additive Model (GAM; Hastie & Tibshirani, 1990) with a Gaussian distribution was applied. In this analysis, ’Overall Knowledge’ was the predictor variable, and students’ self-assessment (rated on a 0–10 scale) reflecting their perceived quality of learning was the response variable. The gam function (mgcv package; Wood, 2011) was used for this analysis. All analyses were conducted using R software v. 4.0.4 (R Core Team, 2021).

4. Results

4.1. Questionnaire Validity

The Cohen’s kappa values obtained for the six questions indicate high inter-rater reliability: 0.94 for Q1, 0.96 for Q2, 0.99 for Q3, 0.94 for Q4, 0.94 for Q5, and 0.98 for Q6. Therefore, it was not necessary to revise the scoring criteria. Furthermore, we obtained a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of 0.77 and a p-value < 0.001 in Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of 0.75, confirms the strong internal consistency of the questionnaire, thus validating its design.

4.2. Descriptive and Qualitative Analysis

Table 4 presents students’ responses to the questionnaires, categorized by gender, before and after the TLS. The results are expressed in absolute numbers and percentages according to the scores obtained.
In Q1, which assesses students’ understanding of the definition of FE, 5% of the students were unable to provide a correct answer (score 0) prior to the intervention (A16pre: ‘Fascinating’), and 77.6% provided a partially correct response (scores 1 and 2: A38pre: ‘I study bugs in a decomposing corpse’ and A68pre: ‘It is the study of insects that helps in the investigation of the death of an individual’, respectively). Only 17% of respondents correctly defined the term (score 3): A7pre: ‘The science of determining the date of death through the various insects and their state of evolution present in the corpse’. Notably, some definitions were compatible with the idea of SG, such as A65pre: ‘Study of the life that is created from the decomposition of the body’. After the intervention, no incorrect answers were recorded, and the proportion of correct responses (score 3) increased to approximately 29% of respondents.
In Q2, which specifically asks about the distinctive morphological characteristics of the main organisms involved in FE, the number of incorrect responses prior the intervention was very high (68.42% of respondents) (A27pre: ‘Flies, larvae…’) but decreased to 9.21% after the intervention. Certain responses were compatible with SG, such as A65pre: ‘They lay eggs and are created from decomposition’. After the intervention, the proportion of correct answers increased notably, from 5.26% to 40.79% (A11post: ‘They have an exoskeleton; their body is divided into thorax, abdomen and head; they have 6 legs and 2 or 4 wings; their life cycle usually goes through larva, pupa and adult; they have two antennae’).
Regarding Q3 and Q4, which indirectly assess students’ conception of the existence or non-existence of SG in two different contexts (meat exposed to the environment in Q3, and a closed flour jar in Q4), students demonstrated greater difficulty in justifying the presence of larvae in the closed flour jar compared to the meat, both before (score 0: 75% for flour, 53.95% for meat) and after the intervention (11.84% vs. 5.26%, respectively). Before the intervention, no students provided correct answers (score 3) to Q4, while approximately 9% answered correctly in Q3. After the intervention, correct explanations for the presence of larvae in meat increased to 57.89% (A31post: ‘As the meat rots, it generates odors that attract insects such as dipterans, which lay eggs from which larvae hatch’). However, correct responses regarding the flour jar remained relatively low (17.11%) (A72post: ‘It is most likely that at some point when the canister was improperly closed or even in the flour factory itself some arthropod has laid eggs in the flour, which after some time have hatched inside the closed canister’).
It is worth noting the presence of answers compatible with SG, such as the responses to Q3: A2pre: ‘The putrefaction of meat’; A58pre: ‘They may have been created from the fusion of a series of atmospheric and chemical conditions’ or A65pre: ‘Meat when it decomposes creates maggots’. Similar misconceptions were observed in Q4: A22pre: ‘I don’t know exactly, I think it could be because when the flour expires it ferments creating bacteria and through those bacteria the worms would appear, but I don’t know if it makes much sense’ or A55pre: ‘They have been formed from the flour itself, as it has not been used over time’. Some students even justified both answers in the same way, reinforcing their belief in SG: Q4 A58pre: ‘I think the same as I answered before [Q3], a series of atmospheric conditions have led to the creation of organisms in that environment’.
In Q5, students were asked about the existence of SG, choosing between: Option (A) ‘larvae appear spontaneously in meat and flour’, or Option (B) ‘it is impossible for larvae to appear spontaneously in these products’. Before the intervention, only 1.32% of students correctly justified option B, while 36.84% either did not answer or selected option A (score 0). For example: A16pre: ‘Yes they can appear spontaneously, with the right environmental conditions and depending on the state of the food they would appear sooner or later’. Additionally, 52.63% of students selected option A but argued in favor of option B (A26pre: ‘A. Because when the meat decomposes, the insects come in, such as larvae and flour, I don’t know’), or selected option B but justified option A (A72pre: ‘B. Because there has to be a process of decomposition of the meat or flour for the larvae to appear’). These responses were assigned a score of 1 in both cases. After the intervention, the percentage of correct answers (score 3) increased significantly from 1.32% to 35.53%. For example, A64post: ‘B. There is no spontaneous generation, every living being comes from another, an arthropod has appeared before and has left its eggs there’). Despite this improvement, a significant proportion of students (46%) still expressed doubts or were unable to justify their answer (score 1): A25post: ‘I would choose option B, as organisms do not come out of nowhere’.
In these last three questions (Q3–Q5), a notable gender difference was observed before the intervention. The percentage of incorrect responses (score 0) was significantly higher among women than men (Q3: 4.29% vs. 25%; Q4: 82.14% vs. 55%; Q5: 46.43% vs. 10%). However, this difference decreased drastically after the intervention (Q3: 7.14% vs. 0%; Q4: 14.29% vs. 5%; Q5: 1.79% vs. 0%). These results suggest that the intervention was effective in equalizing knowledge between genders.
Finally, in Q6, which asked students to identify other organisms that might be found in meat or flour, no major differences were observed before and after the intervention. A small percentage of students provided fully correct answers (score 3) in both cases (approximately 11% before and 12% after). For example, A33post: ‘Diptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera in adult stage, microbiology as fungi… We have living creatures accidentally on corpses and we have insects (within hexapods) and arthropods’. The most notable change was a decrease in incorrect answers (score 0, from 29% to 12%) and an increase in partially correct answers (score 1), where students mentioned at least one term related to one of the blocks (from 45% to 65%).
On average, when considering all questions together (sum of the six questions, with a maximum score of 18 points), the results obtained in the questionnaires were higher after the TLS than before (Table 5). In fact, before the intervention, none of the years or gender groups reached half of the possible total (i.e., 9 out of 18). However, except for the group of male students in the second year, this intermediate score was always exceeded after the didactic intervention. Additionally, female students showed lower scores before the intervention (in the overall calculation) but, on average, reached or even surpassed male students after the learning process (Table 5).

4.3. Student Learning

The model with the lowest AICc for assessing student learning throughout the intervention included only the following fixed variables: time of questionnaire completion (pre- or post-intervention), gender and the interaction between these two variables (Table A3). Academic level and educational background were not selected by the model, as they did not have a significant effect. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these variables influenced the questionnaire results. The combination of the selected fixed effects (gender, time of questionnaire completion, and their interaction) explained more than half of the observed variation (R2m = 0.59), increasing slightly when random variables were included (R2c = 0.69). Among the random variables, inter-student variability had a greater influence than inter-annual variability. Among the fixed variables, significantly higher scores were observed in the post-intervention questionnaire, making time of questionnaire completion the most important factor in explaining the observed differences. This was reflected in a higher deviance score. Furthermore, female students initially scored significantly lower than male students. However, an interaction approaching significance (p = 0.060) was observed between gender and questionnaire timing, suggesting that female students exhibited greater learning gains than male students after the didactic intervention (Figure A1).
Finally, according to the Generalized Additive Model, we identified a significant relationship between the post-intervention questionnaire results and students’ self-assessment (p = 0.002), explaining 35.8% of the observed variability. Students with higher scores also reported higher self-perceptions of learning, while those with lower scores reported lower self-perceptions. However, the relationship between these two variables did not follow a linear trend (Figure 1).

5. Discussion

Post-intervention questionnaire results revealed significant improvements following the implementation of the TLS, supporting the hypothesis that contextualized learning enables students to refute ideas compatible with SG and improve NOS understanding, in line with previous studies (Byington, 2001; Cobo et al., 2022; Custodio et al., 2015). Furthermore, active student participation played a crucial role in enhancing learning outcomes. Active engagement in discussions and inquiry-based activities allowed students to refine their reasoning skills and develop a more critical approach to scientific concepts, as described by other authors (Ahmed et al., 2023; Stender et al., 2018; Strat et al., 2024). The interactive and participatory nature of TLS facilitated knowledge retention, reinforcing the importance of student involvement in the learning process. The responses given to Q3, Q4 and Q5 suggest that replicating Redi’s experiments helped students acquire scientific tools to critically analyze SG and understand associated concepts such as the metamorphic cycle of insects. Moreover, IBL and PBL proved effective in promoting deep and meaningful learning, autonomy and critical thinking, as discussed by other authors (Cobo et al., 2022; Kokotsaki et al., 2016; Strat et al., 2024).
On the other hand, the pre-intervention questionnaire analysis revealed gender differences, with women scoring lower than men. This may be related to a greater aversion towards insects among females, as highlighted in previous research (Azil et al., 2021; Davey et al., 1998; Stoyanova & Hope, 2012). However, these conclusions must be taken with caution as the gender composition of the participants in this intervention was female-biased, especially during the second year (with only two male students). Despite this, these potential gender differences disappeared following the didactic intervention, suggesting that the training equalized knowledge and attitudes between male and female students. This aligns with research highlighting the role of educational context as a key factor in reinforcing scientific reasoning, overcoming cultural stereotypes, and promoting equality in learning (Boser et al., 2014). Additionally, previous studies have indicated that female students tend to exhibit greater self-discipline, self-regulation, and effort in their schoolwork, which translate into higher academic achievement, even in areas and subjects traditionally associated with boys (Burušić & Šerić, 2015; Kenney-Benson et al., 2006). Since the 1990s, empirical evidence has been gathered regarding its underlying causes (Burušić & Šerić, 2015).
In the context of this study, the reduction of gender differences after the didactic intervention could also be explained by the Pygmalion effect, which suggests that students perform better when teachers have high expectations (Boser et al., 2014). Teacher expectations are closely linked to students’ self-perception, and the Pygmalion effect is not only manifested at the individual level, but also at the group level. Thus, high teacher expectations for an entire class can result in higher individual and collective achievement (Rubie-Davies & Hattie, 2025; Szumski & Karwowski, 2019). As a result, female students were able to attain the same level of knowledge and attitudes as their male peers.
Negative perceptions of insects, which are deeply rooted in popular culture, constitute an additional barrier to scientific literacy. Many people perceive insects as disgusting and repulsive (Scudder, 2009) or associate invertebrates with fear, aversion, and ignorance (Kellert, 1993). Such negative attitudes, often developed before puberty, can escalate into uncontrollable and debilitating fear of arthropods, including insects (entomophobia) (Fernández-Rubio, 2016). In fact, everyday language reinforces these perceptions through expressions such as ‘it’s just a bug’ or ‘they are all pests’ (Gunderman & White, 2021). Meanwhile, the media and cinema reinforce this negative perception by caricaturing, distorting or exaggerating the size, behavior, and perceived threat of insects, often portraying them as terrifying monsters that attack humans (Mariño Pérez & Mendoza Almeralla, 2006; Pérez-Velázquez, 2011). These influences perpetuate stereotypes, negatively impacting scientific literacy from an early age. Nevertheless, both school education and social learning can serve as powerful tools to reshape these perceptions, providing accurate information and fostering positive attitudes towards insects, thereby influencing students’ family and school environments (Breuer et al., 2015; McClurg, 1984; Muñiz Estévez & Torralba Burrial, 2022; Schneider & Meyer, 2024; Sitar & Rusu, 2023). Our findings also support the idea that gender stereotypes and negative attitudes towards insects can be effectively challenged through appropriate education.
The relationship between post-intervention questionnaire results and students’ self-perception of learning suggests that those who scored higher also reported greater self-perception of learning (and conversely, lower scores correlated with lower self-perception). This indicates that students had a realistic understanding of their knowledge, although this relationship was not strictly linear (Figure 1). These results underscore the importance of designing interventions that encourage critical and realistic self-assessment.
Despite the overall effectiveness of the TLS, some limitations were identified. The TLS emphasized entomology over microbiology, affecting Q6 responses. Students struggled to apply microbiological knowledge when answering this question. Future iterations should incorporate specific sessions on microbial biodiversity or provide clearer guidance on how to address these aspects.
This study confirms that the TLS was effective in dismantling misconceptions, enhancing students’ understanding of SG and FE, overcoming gender differences in knowledge and attitudes, and promoting meaningful learning. While prior scientific background did not significantly influence initial knowledge, the intervention successfully fostered conceptual change. In the health sector, where entomology is of critical importance, it is essential to overcome misconceptions and cultural stereotypes related to insects. Professional training in this field should include fundamental principles of entomology, not only to disprove misconceptions such as SG, but also to prepare students for real-world scenarios, such as processing samples from decomposing corpses (Infante-Cabezón & Soria-Iglesias, 2020) or diagnosing cutaneous myiasis caused by dipteran larvae (Menéndez-Capote et al., 2020). This educational training becomes even more relevant given the increase in insect-borne diseases and severe pathologies of entomological etiology (World Health Organization, 2024). The inclusion of concepts such as the metamorphic cycle of insects would significantly strengthen the technical and scientific preparation of future professionals in this VET cycle.
Finally, future research should further explore the role of non-academic learning environment in shaping alternative conceptions and developing interdisciplinary strategies that integrate different contextualized approaches, combining FE and microbiology to provide more comprehensive training. This will help ensure that students acquire a thorough understanding of biological processes relevant to their field. These measures will contribute to stronger scientific literacy and better prepare VET students to address complex challenges in healthcare with a more robust scientific foundation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.F.-B., C.Q., and T.P.; methodology, L.F.-B., C.Q., and T.P.; validation, all authors; investigation, L.F.-B., C.Q., and T.P.; formal analysis, Á.G.; writing—original draft preparation, all authors; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

We confirm that the presented research did not require any special approval from the ethics committee. According to the principles of Belmont Report, our research met all the ethical, human, and legal subject requirements imposed on this type of research. Personal information of the participants was strictly anonymized, and researchers had the student’s identification code at their disposal, based on which it was not possible to connect any personal data to individual people.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the students of Galeno—Xtart Centro Privado de Formación Profesional Sanitaria who participated in this study. We are especially grateful to Silvia Magistris, director of the vocational training center where the practical sessions took place, for her support and collaboration. We also acknowledge the valuable contribution of Ana de la Hoz, lecturer at the same vocational training center, whose early involvement played an important role in getting the project started. This research was conducted under a collaboration agreement (OTR2021-21718COLAB) between the Galeno—Xtart Centro Privado de Formación Profesional Sanitaria (Valencia, Spain) and the Universitat de Valencia, Estudi General (Valencia, Spain), titled: Introductory teaching to Forensic Entomology. T.P. is the university’s Principal Investigator (PI) within the framework of the collaboration agreement.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SGSpontaneous generation
FEForensic entomology
VETVocational Education and Training
PACPathological Anatomy and Cytodiagnosis
TLSTeaching and learning sequence
HOSHistory of science
NOSNature of science
IBLInquiry-based learning
PBLProject based learning
Q&AQuestions and answers
IQInitial questionnaire
FQFinal questionnaire

Appendix A

Table A1. Term blocks established to analyze the quality of responses to the different questions.
Table A1. Term blocks established to analyze the quality of responses to the different questions.
QuestionBlocksTerms
Q1BIInsect/arthropod
BIIDeath/corpse/forensic area/forensics
BIIIInterval/dating/location/cause
Q2BIInvertebrate/exoskeleton
BIIWings/flying
BIIIPaired and/or jointed appendages (legs or antennae)
BIVMetamorphosis/molting/life cycle stages
BVBody divided into parts/head, thorax, abdomen/metamerism/tagmatization/tagmata/segments
BVIBilateral symmetry/lateral symmetry
BVIIMouthparts and related terms
Q3 and Q4BIFly/insect/dipteran/lepidopteran/coleopteran/arthropod
BIIEgg/oviposition
BIIILarva/maggot
Q6BIInsect/eggs/pupa/adult/arthropod taxonomy terms
BIIFungi
BIIIBacteria
BIVProtozoa
BVMicroorganisms
Table A2. Rubric used for the analysis of the answers to the questions on knowledge of spontaneous generation (SG) and forensic entomology (FE).
Table A2. Rubric used for the analysis of the answers to the questions on knowledge of spontaneous generation (SG) and forensic entomology (FE).
Question
(No. Blocks)		Score Assigned and Criteria
0123
Knowledge of FEQ1 (3)Does not meet the established criteriaMentions one or several terms from one blockMentions at least one term from two different blocksMentions at least one term from each block
Q2 (7)Does not meet the established criteriaMentions one or several terms from one blockMentions at least one term from two different blocksMentions at least one term from three different blocks
Knowledge of SG and its relation to insects and other types of organismsQ3 (3)Does not meet the established criteriaMentions at least one term from one block, with an argument compatible with the denial of SG but without a correct understanding of the metamorphic cycle of insects

Arguments suggesting that the worms were attracted by organic matter, resulted from environmental contamination, originated from other organisms in the environment, or have an unspecified origin 		Mentions at least three different block terms but argues imprecisely for the answer

Names at least two terms from different blocks, denying the SG, but shows incomplete knowledge about the metamorphic cycle of insects

Names one or more terms from one of the blocks, with an argument against SG and knows about the metamorphic cycle of insects 		Mentions at least one term from each block, argues against SG and understands the metamorphic cycle of insects
Q4 (3)Does not meet the established criteriaMentions at least one term from one block, with an argument compatible with the denial of SG but without a correct understanding of the insect metamorphic cycle

Arguments suggesting that the worms were attracted by organic matter, resulting from environmental contamination, originated from other organisms in the environment, or have an unspecified origin		Mentions at least three different terms from different blocks but provides an imprecise argument

Mentions at least two terms from different blocks, denying SG but showing incomplete knowledge of the metamorphic cycle of insects

Mentions one or more terms from one block, with an argument against SG and demonstrate knowledge of the metamorphic cycle of insects		Mentions at least one term from each block, argues against SG, and understands the metamorphic cycle of insects
Q5 (0)Chooses option A, with or without justification, or leaves the answer blank.Chooses option A but argues in favour of option B

Chooses option B but argues in favour of option A

Chooses option B without justification		Chooses option B, with an argument compatible with the negation of SG, understands the metamorphic cycle of insects, but uses colloquial or imprecise languageChooses option B, with an argument compatible with the negation of SG, understands the metamorphic cycle of insects, and uses precise language
Q6 (5)Does not meet the established criteriaMentions one or several terms from one blockMentions at least one term from two different blocksMentions at least one term from three different blocks
Table A3. Results of the Generalized Linear Mixed Model. The table includes marginal R-squared (R2m), conditional R-squared (R2c), p-value, coefficient, standard error (SE), and deviance for the fixed variables, along with variance and standard deviation (SD) for the random variables.
Table A3. Results of the Generalized Linear Mixed Model. The table includes marginal R-squared (R2m), conditional R-squared (R2c), p-value, coefficient, standard error (SE), and deviance for the fixed variables, along with variance and standard deviation (SD) for the random variables.
R2mR2cVariablesp-ValueCoefficientSEDevianceVarianceSE
0.590.69Random Effects
Year 0.0820.286
Student 1.6951.302
Fixed Effects
Intercept<0.0016.6170.602
Gender (Female)0.008−1.8810.71345.14
Time (Post-Intervention)<0.0014.9500.7001404.24
Gender (Female):Time (Post-Intervention)0.0601.5320.81517.30
Education 15 01015 g0a1
Figure A1. Relationship between overall knowledge obtained (sum of the six questions, with a maximum of 18 points), the time of questionnaire completion (before or after the intervention), and students’ gender (red = men; blue = women). Dots refer to outliers.
Figure A1. Relationship between overall knowledge obtained (sum of the six questions, with a maximum of 18 points), the time of questionnaire completion (before or after the intervention), and students’ gender (red = men; blue = women). Dots refer to outliers.
Education 15 01015 g0a1

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1999). Teaching science with history: Using Mars and Saturn to teach about the relationship between theory and observation. The Science Teacher, 66(9), 18–22. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24153760 (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., Aragón-Méndez, M. D. M., & García-Carmona, A. (2018). Comprensión de futuros profesores de ciencia sobre aspectos epistémicos de la naturaleza de la ciencia en cuatro controversias de historia de la ciencia. Revista Científica, 3(33), 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., García-Carmona, A., & Aragón, M. D. M. (2016). La controversia Pasteur vs. Pouchet sobre la generación espontánea: Un recurso para la formación inicial del profesorado en la naturaleza de la ciencia desde un enfoque reflexivo. Ciência & Educação, 22, 913–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmed, N., Park, J., Arteaga, C., & Stephen, H. (2023). Investigation of progressive learning within a statics course: An analysis of performance retention, critical topics, and active participation. Education Sciences, 13(6), 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alisir, Z. N., & Irez, S. (2020). The effect of replicating historical scientific apparatus on high school students’ attitudes towards science and their understanding of nature of science. Science & Education, 29, 1201–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ault, C. R. (1984). Intelligently wrong: Some comments on children’s misconceptions. Science and Children, 21, 22–24. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43162540 (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  10. Azil, A., Yakub, M., Hassan, N., & Sharip, S. (2021). Fear towards insects and other arthropods: A cross sectional study in a Malaysian university. Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 17(1), 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Badenhorst, E., Mamede, S., Hartman, N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2015). Exploring lecturers’ views of first-year health science students’ misconceptions in biomedical domains. Advances in Health Science Education, 20, 403–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bartlett, M. S. (1951). The effect of standardization on a χ2 approximation in factor analysis. Biometrika, 38(3/4), 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barton, K. (2020). MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.43.17. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  14. Bolker, B. M. (2015). Linear and generalized linear mixed models. In G. A. Fox, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, & V. J. Sosa (Eds.), Ecological statistics: Contemporary theory and application (pp. 309–334). Oxford Academic. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boser, U., Wilhelm, M., & Hanna, R. (2014). The power of the pygmalion effect: Teachers’ expectations strongly predict college completion. Center for American Progress. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED564606.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2025).
  16. Breuer, G. B., Schlegel, J., Kauf, P., & Rupf, R. (2015). The importance of being colorful and able to fly: Interpretation and implications of children’s statements on selected insects and other invertebrates. International Journal of Science Education, 37(16), 2664–2687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brooks, M. E., Kristensen, K., Van Benthem, K. J., Magnusson, A., Berg, C. W., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H. J., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B. M. (2017). GlmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modelling. The R Journal, 9(2), 378–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Burušić, J., & Šerić, M. (2015). Girls’ and boys’ achievements differences in the school context: An overview of possible explanations. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(4), 137–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Byington, S. (2001). Spontaneously generating life in your classroom? Pasteur, Spallanzani & Science Process. The American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carrascosa-Alís, J. (2005). El problema de las concepciones alternativas en la actualidad (parte I). Análisis sobre las causas que la originan y/o mantienen. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 2(2), 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carrascosa-Alís, J. (2014). Ideas alternativas en conceptos científicos. Revista Científica, 18(1), 112–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. CEDEFOP. (2023). Vocational education and training in Spain: Short description. Publications Office. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/221364 (accessed on 27 January 2025).
  23. Cobo, C., Abril, A. M., & Romero-Ariza, M. (2022). Effectiveness of a contextualised and integrated approach to improving and retaining preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 44(18), 2783–2803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 205–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Curtis, H., Barnes, N. S., Schnek, A., & Massarini, A. (2008). Biology (7th ed.). Médica Panamericana. [Google Scholar]
  28. Custodio, E., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2015). Aprender a justificar científicamente a partir del estudio del origen de los seres vivos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 33(2), 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Davey, G. C., McDonald, A. S., Hirisave, U., Prabhu, G. G., Iwawaki, S., Im Jim, C., Merckelbach, H., de Jong, P. J., Leung, P. W., & Reimann, B. C. (1998). A cross-cultural study of animal fears. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(7–8), 735–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Decree. (2022). Por el que se establece para la Comunitat Valenciana el currículo del ciclo formativo de grado superior correspondiente al título de técnico o técnica superior en anatomía patológica y citodiagnóstico. 8 de abril de 2022. DOCV 2022/3418. 38/2022. Available online: https://dogv.gva.es/datos/2022/04/21/pdf/2022_3418.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  31. Del Giudice, M. (2022). The Square-root scree plot: A simple improvement to classic display. OpenPsych. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dogan, N., Manassero-Mas, M. A., & Vázquez-Alonso, Á. (2020). El pensamiento creativo en estudiantes para profesores de ciencias: Efectos del aprendizaje basado en problemas y en la historia de la ciencia. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: TED, (48), 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Driver, R. (1986). Psicología cognoscitiva y esquemas conceptuales de los alumnos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 4(1), 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Driver, R. (1988). Un enfoque constructivista para el desarrollo del currículo en ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 6(2), 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fernández-Rubio, F. (2016). El impacto de los artrópodos sobre la mente humana. Revista Gaditana de Entomología, 7(1), 199–224. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gil, D., & Carrascosa, J. (1985). Science learning as a conceptual and methodological change. European Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guerra-Reyes, F., Guerra-Dávila, E., Naranjo-Toro, M., Basantes-Andrade, A., & Guevara-Betancourt, S. (2024). Misconceptions in the learning of natural sciences: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(5), 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gunderman, H., & White, R. (2021). Critical posthumanism for all: A call to reject insect speciesism. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(3/4), 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hastie, T. J., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1990). Generalized additive models (Vol. 43). CRC Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hejran, A., Sarwari, A., Hassand, M., Ihsas, R., & Kakar, U. (2024). The fundamental underpinning of biological theory of spontaneous generation in biology. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 2(2), 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ibikunle, P. O., Rhoda, A., & Smith, M. (2021). Structural validity and reliability of the return to work assessment scale among post stroke survivors. WORK, 69(3), 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Infante-Cabezón, J. C., & Soria-Iglesias, F. J. (2020). Entomología forense. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, (30), 133–146. [Google Scholar]
  44. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Izah, S. C., Sylva, L., & Hait, M. (2024). Cronbach’s alpha: A cornerstone in ensuring reliability and validity in environmental health assessment. Energy & Environment, 23, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jiménez Martínez, V. (2021). De la Ilíada a Pasteur: La generació espontània. Available online: https://www.cienciaoberta.cat/generacio-espontania/ (accessed on 27 January 2025).
  47. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kenney-Benson, G., Pomerantz, E. M., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. King, C. J. H. (2009). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kotsias, B. A. (2002). Alguna vez ardió Troya: Homero y la generación espontánea. Medicina, 62(4), 377–378. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kruse, J., Kent-Schneider, I., Voss, S., Zacharski, K., & Rockefeller, M. (2020). Investigating the effect of NOS question type on students’ NOS responses. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kumandaş, B., Ateskan, A., & Lane, J. (2018). Misconceptions in biology: A meta-synthesis study of research, 2000–2014. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 350–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about misconceptions: Preservice secondary science teachers’ views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96(5), 927–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. López, F., Contreras, M., Nussbaum, M., Paredes, R., Gelerstein, D., Alvares, D., & Chiuminatto, P. (2023). Developing critical thinking in technical and vocational education and training. Education Sciences, 13(6), 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mariño Pérez, M., & Mendoza Almeralla, C. M. (2006). Los insectos en el cine. Un estudio preliminar. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, (38), 415–421. [Google Scholar]
  58. McClurg, P. (1984). Don’t squash it! Collect it! Science and Children, 21(8), 8–10. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43162535 (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  59. McComas, W. F. (2011). The history of science and the future of science education. In P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, & A. A. Rizaki (Eds.), Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (pp. 37–53). Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  60. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Nouri, N. (2020). Nature of science and classroom practice: A review of the literature with implications for effective NOS instruction. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 87–111). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  61. McQuarrie, A. D. R., & Tsai, C.-L. (1998). Regression and time series model selection. World Scientific Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Melesse, D., Menkir, S., Yemata, G., & Seifu, A. (2025). Effect of context-based instructional approach on students’ science process skills acquisition in environmental concepts. Education Inquiry, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Menéndez-Capote, R. L., Olo-Olo, H., Obono-Engang, P., & Chappotten-Delahanty, M. Á. (2020). Miasis cutánea forunculoide. Revista Española de Casos Clínicos en Medicina Interna, 5(3), 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Molina, M. D., Sundar, S. S., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2021). “Fake news” is not simply false information: A concept explication and taxonomy of online content. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 180–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Muñiz Estévez, L., & Torralba Burrial, A. (2022). Conociendo los insectos en educación infantil: Evaluación diagnóstica y análisis de su percepción. Didácticas Específicas, (26), 62–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ngereja, B., Hussein, B., & Andersen, B. (2020). Does project-based learning (PBL) promote student learning? A performance evaluation. Education Sciences, 10(11), 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Núñez Acosta, D., Costillo Borrego, E., Borrache Ro Cortes, A. B., & Juanez Cubero, J. (2013). Ideas alternativas de un grupo de estudiantes para maestro sobre la sucesión ecológica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias: Revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, núm. Extra. 02531–02538. Available online: https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/307929 (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  68. Organic Law. (2003). Por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial. 23 de diciembre de 2003. BOE-A-2003-23644. 19/2003. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/12/26/pdfs/A46025-46096.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  69. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pérez-Velázquez, M. D. (2011). Miedo, pánico y terror a los insectos, reales e imaginarios: Entomofobia y otras enfermedades. In J. L. Navarrete-Heredia, G. Castaño-Meneses, & G. A. Quiroz-Rocha (Eds.), Facetas de la ciencia: Ensayos sobre entomología cultural (pp. 49–50). Universidad de Zaragoza. [Google Scholar]
  71. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rama Espejo, L. M. (2018). Búsqueda de pruebas para poner en conflicto las concepciones sobre la generación espontánea en ESO [Master’s thesis, Universidad de Almería]. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10835/7127 (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  73. Rau, G., & Shih, Y.-S. (2021). Evaluation of Cohen’s kappa and other measures of inter-rater agreement for genre analysis and other nominal data. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, 101026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Raynaud, D. (2017). Scientific controversies: A socio-historical perspective on the advancement of science. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  75. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  76. Redi, F. (1668). Esperienze intorno alla generazione degli insetti (1668). In P. Cristofolini (Ed.), Redi, Vallisneri, Spallanzani. La scuola galileiana e l’origine della vita. Loescher. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Revelle, W. (2025). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.5.6). Northwestern University. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  78. Rizopoulos, D. (2006). Ltm: An R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Royal Decree. (2014). De 12 de septiembre, por el que se establece el título de Técnico Superior en Anatomía Patológica y Citodiagnóstico y se fijan sus enseñanzas mínimas. 4 de octubre de 2014. BOE-A-2014-10064. 767/2014. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2014/10/04/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-10064.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  80. Royal Decree. (2022a). De 1 de marzo, por el que se establecen la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Primaria. 02 de marzo de 2022. BOE-A-2022-3296. 157/2022. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2022/BOE-A-2022-3296-consolidado.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  81. Royal Decree. (2022b). De 29 de marzo, por el que se establece la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. 30 de marzo de 2022. BOE-A-2022-4975. 217/2022. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2022/03/30/pdfs/BOE-A-2022-4975.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  82. Royal Decree. (2022c). De 5 de abril, por el que se establecen la ordenación y las enseñanzas mínimas del Bachillerato. 6 de abril de 2022. BOE-A-2022-5521. 243/2022. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2022/04/06/pdfs/BOE-A-2022-5521.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  83. Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Hattie, J. A. (2025). The powerful impact of teacher expectations: A narrative review. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 55(2), 343–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schneider, K., & Meyer, J. (2024). Do future biology teachers bug out with higher insect-related knowledge and more positive attitudes? A comparison of different education levels. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1477841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Scudder, G. G. E. (2009). The importance of insects. In R. Footit, & P. Adler (Eds.), Insect biodiversity: Science and society (pp. 7–32). Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sircar, M., Orr, S., Madis, C., & DiMaria, S. (2024). Conceptualizing an initial framework to support discipline-rich project-based learning in STEM. Education Sciences, 14(7), 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sitar, G. M., & Rusu, A. S. (2023). The impact of environmental educational programs in promoting insects conservation awareness: A scoping review. Journal of Educational Sciences, 24, 74–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Solbes, J. (2009). Dificultades de aprendizaje y cambio conceptual, procedimental y axiológico (I): Resumen del camino avanzado. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 6(1), 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stahl, A. (1992). The interference of traditional beliefs and concepts in the study of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(1), 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40, 1812–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Stoyanova, M., & Hope, D. A. (2012). Gender, gender roles, and anxiety: Perceived confirmability of self report, behavioral avoidance, and physiological reactivity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(1), 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  94. Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Exploring the Pygmalion effect: The role of teacher expectations, academic self-concept, and class context in students’ math achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tong, W. (2024). A validation study of a self-assessment questionnaire for middle school students’ self-presentation skills. Journal of Language Learning and Assessment, 2(1), 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Urdanivia Alarcon, D. A., Talavera-Mendoza, F., Rucano Paucar, F. H., Cayani Caceres, K. S., & Machaca Viza, R. (2023). Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1170487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vijapurkar, J., & Konde, P. (2014). ‘Omne vivum ex vivo’? A study of middle school students’ explanations of the seemingly sudden appearance of some life forms. Research in Science Education, 44, 885–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wallengren Lynch, M. (2017). Using conferences poster presentations as a tool for student learning and development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wood, S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 73(1), 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. World Health Organization. (2024). Vector-borne diseases. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/vector-borne-diseases (accessed on 27 January 2025).
  103. Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Yip, D. (1998). Identification of misconceptions in novice biology teachers and remedial strategies for improving biology learning. International Journal of Science, 4(20), 461–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01015 g001
Figure 1. Relationship between post-intervention questionnaire scores (0–18) at the end of the intervention and the students’ self-perception of learning, assessed through self-evaluation (0–10). Black dots represent individual student scores (multiple students may be overlapped). The blue line shows the fitted data, and the grey shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval.
Figure 1. Relationship between post-intervention questionnaire scores (0–18) at the end of the intervention and the students’ self-perception of learning, assessed through self-evaluation (0–10). Black dots represent individual student scores (multiple students may be overlapped). The blue line shows the fitted data, and the grey shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval.
Education 15 01015 g001
Table 1. Characteristics of the participating students, including age (mean ± standard deviation), gender, academic level, and previous educational background (scientific or other).
Table 1. Characteristics of the participating students, including age (mean ± standard deviation), gender, academic level, and previous educational background (scientific or other).
Academic YearParticipantsAgeGenderLevel of EducationEducational Background
M 1FNBIHBUSOther
2020–20212520.9 ± 1.8817012490232
2021–20222722.7 ± 6.3225013491261
2022–20232421.7 ± 3.21014015441231
1 M: male; F: female; NB: Nonbinary; I: Intermediate VET; H: Higher VET; B: Baccalaureate; U: University; S: Scientific.
Table 2. Contextualized Teaching and Learning Sequence implemented with VET students.
Table 2. Contextualized Teaching and Learning Sequence implemented with VET students.
PhasesSessions/TopicTeacher-Led
Intervention		Individual
Activities		Small-Group
Activities		Whole-Class
Activities
ExplorationS0. Exploration and data collectionPre-intervention knowledge questionnaire0.1 Answering the questionnaire on prior knowledge of FE and SG
InterventionS1. Contextualization of the historical controversy of SGDistribution of the reference material on the acceptance or refutation of SG 1.1 Development of an explanatory or dissemination material (including illustrations, diagrams, and keywords) on a relevant scientific episode of the HOS related to SG

1.2 Oral presentation of the material prepared		1.3 Compilation of the complete chronology of scientific thinking on SG, based on the results from the different subgroups
S2. Experimental design to refute SGAnalysis of the scientific method and its main phases: identification of previous errors

Explanation of variable types (independent, dependent, and constant/controlled)		 2.2 Design of the experiment to refute SG at the macroscopic level, revisiting Francesco Redi’s original setup: ’Redi 2.0’ experiment2.1 Cooperative construction of the scientific method stages.

2.3 Review and refinement of the designed experiments
S3. Introduction to EntomologyExplanation of arthropods and their subgroups

Use of a virtual board to share students’ drawings collectively		3.1 Drawing different insects, in both their immature and adult stages, without using any visual reference 3.2 Reaching a consensus on possible anatomical and developmental patterns of the drawn insects

3.3 Reformulation of the previously identified patterns (after teacher-led intervention)
S4. Transversality of EntomologyExpanding entomology from an applied perspective, focusing on forensics

Explanation of different types of metamorphosis		 4.1 Associating the drawn insects with the main hexapod groups related to FE
S5. Initiation of research: Launch of the ’Redi 2.0’ experiment 5.1 Setting up the experiment
S6–S14. Experiment follow-up 6.1 Examination of the insects found at different developmental stages (repeated until session 14)

6.2 Dating the larval stage of dipterans (repeated until session 14)		6.3 Small-group execution of the individual activities mentioned
ExtrapolationS15. Poster preparationExplanation of guidelines and necessary criteria for poster development

Supervision, guidance, and feedback on student work		 15.1 Discussion on the poster’s approach

15.2 Drafting the poster

15.3 Applying improvements to the draft
S16. Poster presentationProviding constructive criticism for future posters

Public positive reinforcement of the strengths of each poster		 16.1 Oral presentation of the poster16.2 Q&A session following the presentation of each poster’s content
S17. Self-assessment of learningStudent evaluation of their perception of learning throughout the sessions17.1 Numerical response (0 to 10) to a question on self-perceived learning 17.2 Reflection on how FE disproves the idea of SG
SynthesisS18. EvaluationPost-intervention knowledge questionnaire18.1 Answering the post-intervention questionnaire on acquired knowledge of FE and SG
Table 3. Questions included in the initial (IQ) and final (FQ) questionnaires on knowledge of spontaneous generation and forensic entomology.
Table 3. Questions included in the initial (IQ) and final (FQ) questionnaires on knowledge of spontaneous generation and forensic entomology.
QuestionStatement
Q1How would you define Forensic Entomology?
Q2What are the distinctive morphological characteristics of the main organisms involved in Forensic Entomology?
Q3You have been away for the weekend and left the hamburger thawing on the kitchen table on an uncovered plate. Upon your return, you notice white maggots in the meat. How would you explain their appearance?
Q4When you take the jar of flour from a kitchen shelf, you notice that, although nobody has opened it for a long time, there are worms inside along with the flour. How would you explain their appearance?
Q5IQ: Imagine you were given the opportunity to scientifically prove that larvae: (a) Can spontaneously appear on meat and flour. (b) Cannot spontaneously appear on meat and flour. Which option would you choose? Please, justify your answer.
FQ: You have been given the opportunity to scientifically demonstrate that larvae: (a) Can spontaneously appear on meat and flour. (b) Cannot spontaneously appear on meat and flour. Which option did you choose? Please, justify your answer.
Q6Besides larvae, do you think that other types of organisms can appear? List as many examples as you can.
Table 4. Response (by gender, in number and percentage) to the six questionnaire questions, segmented by response time (before or after the didactic intervention) and by the score obtained.
Table 4. Response (by gender, in number and percentage) to the six questionnaire questions, segmented by response time (before or after the didactic intervention) and by the score obtained.
QuestionScorePre-Intervention QuestionnairePost-Intervention Questionnaire
Male
(n = 2)		Female
(n = 56)		Total
(n = 76)		Male
(n = 2)		Female
(n = 56)		Total
(n = 76)
Q102 (10%)2 (3.57%)4 (5.26%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
14 (20%)22 (39.29%)26 (34.21%)3 (15%)7 (12.5%)10 (13.16%)
210 (50%)23 (41.07%)33 (43.42%)11 (55%)33 (58.93%)44 (57.89%)
34 (20%)9 (16.07%)13 (17.11%)6 (30%)16 (28.57%)22 (28.95%)
Q2013 (65%)39 (69.64%)52 (68.42%)0 (0%)7 (12.5%)7 (9.21%)
16 (30%)13 (23.21%)19 (25%)3 (15%)13 (23.21%)16 (21.05%)
21 (5%)4 (7.14.%)5 (6.58%)5 (25%)17 (30.36%)22 (28.95%)
30 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)12 (60%)19 (33.93%)31 (40.79%)
Q305 (25%)36 (64.29%)41 (53.95%)0 (0%)4 (7.14%)4 (5.26%)
11 (5%)3 (5.36%)4 (5.26%)0 (0%)2 (3.57%)2 (2.63%)
210 (50%)14 (25%)24 (31.58%)8 (40%)18 (32.14%)26 (34.21%)
34 (20%)3 (5.36%)7 (9.21%)12 (60%)32 (57.14%)44 (57.89%)
Q4011 (55%)46 (82.14%)57 (75%)1 (5%)8 (14.29%)9 (11.84%)
16 (30%)7 (12.5%)13 (17.11%)10 (50%)17 (30.36%)27 (35.53%)
23 (15%)3 (5.36%)6 (7.89%)4 (20%)23 (41.07%)27 (35.53%)
30 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)5 (25%)8 (14.29%)13 (17.11%)
Q502 (10%)26 (46.43%)28 (36.84%)0 (0%)1 (1.79%)1 (1.32%)
116 (80%)24 (42.86%)40 (52.63%)12 (60%)23 (41.07%)35 (46.05%)
21 (5%)6 (10.71%)7 (9.21%)3 (15%)10 (17.86%)13 (17.11%)
31 (5%)0 (0%)1 (1.32%)5 (25%)22 (39.29%)27 (35.53%)
Q605 (25%)17 (30.36%)22 (28.95%)1 (5%)8 (14.29%)9 (11.84%)
19 (45%)25 (44.64%)34 (44.74%)16 (80%)33 (58.93%)49 (64.47%)
23 (15%)9 (16.07%)12 (15.79%)2 (10%)7 (12.5%)9 (11.84%)
33 (15%)5 (8.93%)8 (10.53%)1 (5%)8 (14.29%)9 (11.84%)
Table 5. Total sum (maximum score = 18 points) of the questionnaire results before and after the TLS, disaggregated by gender and academic year (mean ± standard deviation and sample size).
Table 5. Total sum (maximum score = 18 points) of the questionnaire results before and after the TLS, disaggregated by gender and academic year (mean ± standard deviation and sample size).
Academic YearPre-Intervention QuestionnairePost-Intervention Questionnaire
MaleFemaleTotal ScoreMaleFemaleTotal Score
2020–20217.0 ± 3.1 (n = 8)5.4 ± 2.6 (n = 17)5.9 ± 2.8 (n = 25)11.1 ± 2.1 (n = 8)11.6 ± 2.9 (n = 17)11.4 ± 2.7 (n = 25)
2021–20228.0 ± 2.8 (n = 2)4.5 ± 2.3 (n = 25)4.7 ± 2.5 (n = 27)8.5 ± 0.7 (n = 2)10.2 ± 2.8 (n = 25)10 ± 2.8 (n = 27)
2022–20236.2 ± 2.0 (n = 10)4.3 ± 2.6 (n = 14)5.1 ± 2.5 (n = 24)12.7 ± 1.4 (n = 10)12.5 ± 2.7 (n = 14)12.6 ± 2.2 (n = 24)
Total6.7 ± 2.5 (n = 20)4.7 ± 2.5 (n = 56)5.2 ± 2.6 (n = 76)11.7 ± 2.1 (n = 20)11.2 ± 3.0 (n = 56)11.3 ± 2.7 (n = 76)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fontana-Bria, L.; Quesada, C.; Gálvez, Á.; Pina, T. Enhancing Scientific Literacy in VET Health Students: The Role of Forensic Entomology in Debunking Spontaneous Generation. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081015

AMA Style

Fontana-Bria L, Quesada C, Gálvez Á, Pina T. Enhancing Scientific Literacy in VET Health Students: The Role of Forensic Entomology in Debunking Spontaneous Generation. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(8):1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fontana-Bria, Laia, Carla Quesada, Ángel Gálvez, and Tatiana Pina. 2025. "Enhancing Scientific Literacy in VET Health Students: The Role of Forensic Entomology in Debunking Spontaneous Generation" Education Sciences 15, no. 8: 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081015

APA Style

Fontana-Bria, L., Quesada, C., Gálvez, Á., & Pina, T. (2025). Enhancing Scientific Literacy in VET Health Students: The Role of Forensic Entomology in Debunking Spontaneous Generation. Education Sciences, 15(8), 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081015

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop