International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Impact of Cooperative Learning and Project-Based Learning
through Emotional Intelligence: A Comparison of Methodologies
for Implementing SDGs
Alba Lozano 1,2 , Roberto López 3 , Fernando J. Pereira 4 and Carolina Blanco Fontao 5, *

1 Department of Mining, Topography and Structures, Area of Mining Prospecting and Research,
University of Leon, 24007 León, Spain
2 Department of Mineralogy, Petrology and Applied Geology, Faculty of Earth Sciences,
University of Barcelona (UB), Martí Franquès s/n, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
3 Department of Applied Chemistry and Physics, Area of Physical Chemistry, University of Leon,
24007 León, Spain
4 Department of Applied Chemistry and Physics, Area of Analytical Chemistry, University of Leon,
24007 León, Spain
5 Department of General and Specific Didactics and Theory of Education, Area of Didactics of Experimental
Sciences, University of Leon, 24007 León, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Education for sustainable development (ESD) is a holistic and transformative form of educa-
tion that seeks action-oriented pedagogy using self-directed learning, participation, and collaboration,
among other aspects, and is suitable for developing active methodologies. Since affective-emotional
Citation: Lozano, A.; López, R.;
aspects can contribute in the teaching-learning process, this work studies, through a case study, the
Pereira, F.J.; Blanco Fontao, C. Impact
comparison of the influence of two active methodologies: Cooperative Learning (CL) and Project-
of Cooperative Learning and
Based Learning (PBL) in student emotions and learning processes, as well as their awareness of ESD.
Project-Based Learning through
Emotional Intelligence: A
For that purpose, a survey was conducted at the fourth secondary level in the science laboratory, sub-
Comparison of Methodologies for jected to the innovation project e-WORLD, which developed the content of the 7 and 13 Sustainable
Implementing SDGs. Int. J. Environ. Development Goals (SDGs) from the 2030 Agenda. Results of ANOVA and Tukey’s tests carried
Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977. out showed that both methodologies improved skills and knowledge related to climate change and
https://doi.org/10.3390/ energy, and triggered major positive emotions in students. Furthermore, CL allowed students to
ijerph192416977 acquire more individual and group responsibility than communication skills developed with PBL. It
Academic Editors: John Chi Kin Lee,
is necessary to continue working on the involvement of students in these methodologies in order to
Eric Po-keung Tsang and Chi improve their social skills and to reveal life changes towards more socio-sustainable ones.
Chiu Cheang
Keywords: project-based-learning; cooperative learning; sustainability; affordable energy; SDGs;
Received: 8 November 2022
science teaching-learning; education for sustainable development; climate change; emotions
Accepted: 14 December 2022
Published: 17 December 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
During the last few decades there has been a technological evolution, which has
iations.
forced us to adapt to new technologies. Consequently, content studied at high school level
has been readjusted to the development of society and its needs. Thus, today, we can
understand education as a constantly changing process (formal, non-formal, and informal).
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
It is aimed, through knowledge, attitudes, and values, at promoting a global citizenship
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. that generates a culture of solidarity committed to the fight against poverty and exclusion,
This article is an open access article as well as to the promotion of human and sustainable development [1,2].
distributed under the terms and In this sense, education for sustainable development (ESD) can be understood as a
conditions of the Creative Commons holistic and transformative education form, addressing content, the environment, and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// learning outcomes. Therefore, it not only integrates content in relation to climate change,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ poverty, and sustainable consumption into the curriculum, but also creates interactive,
4.0/).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416977 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 2 of 17

contextualized, and learner-centered teaching and learning contexts. It seeks a transforma-

tive and action-oriented pedagogy, and is characterized by aspects such as self-directed
learning, participation, and collaboration, the development of reflective capacity, inter-
and transdisciplinary problem orientation, and the creation of links between formal and
informal learning. Only such pedagogical approaches can boost key competencies needed
to foster sustainable development [3].
This pedagogical approach has been gained relevance and prominence, and has been
transferred to different areas and institutions in the belief that the education system cannot
and should not be oblivious to the challenges posed by the climate emergency taking place
on our planet. Schools and high schools must become a place of stewardship and care for
our environment, to become the engines of a culture based on environmental sustainability,
social cooperation, and developing programs for sustainable lifestyles, as well as promoting
recycling and interactions with green spaces and the more-than-human world.
Consequently, the new Spanish National Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29
(LOMLOE) [4], proposed to collect content for sustainable development and citizenship
established by the 2030 Agenda. This Agenda includes, among other topics, education
on ecological transition and local action to address the climate emergency and energy
crisis, established in several of the Goals of Sustainable Development (SDGs). The new law,
materialized in the curricula of the different autonomous communities, requires adapting
to the new demands posed by social, economic, and environmental evolution, while it is
essential to promote the achievement of education for sustainable development through
the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda [5].
Transforming educational plans has become a great challenge for politicians and
teachers, with the aim of improving society as a whole and finding synergies between
intellectual development and the re-humanization of education for personal and social
services. Scientific literacy, in this aspect, has become a key international objective in
order to face the current challenges of humanity [6]. For that reason, today, educational
projects including these concepts have considerably increased. These projects are based
on achieving greater empowerment for the student, giving meaning to their education
through involvement in the problems of society, while the student must be associated with
the real world context; in this case, climate change [7,8].
In this way, the student acquires meaningful learning when he/she is involved in
society’s problems and is made to participate in them. The changes introduced in the
teaching-learning models allow students to develop the skills and competences that are part
of their reality through the design, implementation, and evaluation of projects connected to
their life and interests.
An example of these new projects is the e-WORLD innovation project, owned by
the Repsol Zinkers Foundation and intended for secondary school students. This project
works specifically on SDG 7, affordable and non-polluting energy, and SDG 13, climate
action, with the aim of raising awareness of the need to globally reduce CO2 emissions.
This program is carried out by applying two active methodologies: project-based learning
(PBL) and cooperative learning (CL) [9]. It approaches the teaching-learning process as
contextualized through a real problem in which the students have to become involved in
the decision-making process to face the problem, which causes the project to intrinsically
embrace SGD4: quality education.
From the constructivist theories framework, Ausubel defines meaningful learning as
active learning, produced by the relationship between previous knowledge, already ac-
quired by the student, and new knowledge [10]. This learning is enhanced through the
development of active methodologies, such as project-based learning (PBL) and cooperative
learning (CL). Both methodologies cause the student to become actively participative in the
learning process, while the teacher acts as a guide in the process [11,12]. The PBL promotes
student skills for problem solving: autonomous learning, critical attitude, communica-
tion, cooperation, and decision-making [13]. It also develops creativity, autonomy, and
motivation [14]. In addition, at the beginning of the learning process, clear and challenging
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 3 of 17

criteria and guidelines are established to increase their involvement, where the teacher is a
facilitator of learning [15].
CL is a methodology based on the organization of a classroom, where the students
work in groups due to the skills and resources exchange among classmates [16]. In addition,
teamwork learning promotes interpersonal relationships and respect [17]. Recent studies
have shown that the use of active methodologies in the classroom not only favors meaning-
ful learning, but also allows the development of personal, social, and professional skills,
or even critical spirit [18–20], which are necessary to develop the skills that are evaluated
in the PISA report [21]. Therefore, a study of the use of active methodologies and their
evolution according to the changes in education takes on special importance to ensure
meaningful learning and learning by competencies.
In recent years there has been growing interest in emotional intelligence and the
teaching-learning process in relation to the skills developed by the students [22]. Emo-
tional intelligence has its origins in the Theory of Multiple Intelligences as described by
Garner [23], in which he defines eight types of independent intelligences. Two of them,
interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences, are defined as the ability to attend to other
people and the ability to have a coherent image of oneself, respectively. In the mid-1990s,
the term emotional intelligence was established, defined by Goleman as “the ability to recog-
nize our own feelings and those of others, to motivate ourselves and manage emotionality
in ourselves and in interpersonal relationships” [24].
Results regarding science teaching have shown that emotional intelligence improves
learning outcomes [25,26]. Mellado et al. [27] focused on the study of the emotions of
science teachers and students with the aim of designing intervention programs for the
control and self-regulation of their learning through knowledge of their emotions. In a
similar trend, another study on the evolution of the emotions of physics and chemistry
students throughout the three Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) courses showed
that positive emotions in relation to science decreased after each course [28]. Along the
same lines, the results obtained in [29] showed that students expressed mainly negative
emotions in relation to science content.
In addition to the effects on cognitive aspects, emotions are important because they
act as predictors of behavior. Weiner’s attribution theory makes it possible to explain
why students experience positive or negative emotions towards subjects based on their
successes or failures [30]. Those students that present academic failures in science subjects
have felt negative emotions that cause rejection towards scientific learning. On the other
hand, those who have achieved academic success have experienced positive emotions that
generate attraction and motivation towards this same type of learning [31]. In this way, the
use of active methodologies could provoke positive emotions that cause student interest in
science to last, while enhancing meaningful learning.
Emotional intelligence also allows learning by competences. Its development can
improve social skills and interpersonal interaction in students, which could be included
in emotional competence [32]. This competence favors problem solving and prevents
violent behavior among teenage students through emotions management [33]. In addition,
neurodidactics, understood as a discipline that studies the mechanisms that the brain uses
to optimize the educational process, has made it possible to explain, for example, why
active learning methodologies based on projects (PBL) and cooperative learning favor
student learning by promoting their interests and motivations [34], and by acquiring skills
and competencies [18].
For the reasons previously stated, it has been considered necessary to study emotions
in projects based on the implementation of the SDGs in the curricular content of secondary
school students. In this way, it could be known if the learning situations through active and
innovative methodologies, associated to a real problem in the student environment, favors
motivation and interest in experimental sciences, as well as increases meaningful learning.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 4 of 17

2. Objectives
This work aims to study the influence of two active methodologies (CL and PBL) on
emotions and on the teaching-learning process, as well as the awareness of students in ESD
working on the 7 and 13 SDGs using a case study. In order to achieve this objective, the
specific defined objectives are:
- Objective 1: Analyze the different impact among skills developed caused by the
two active methodologies used in the research (CL and PBL).
- Objective 2: Study the impact that methodologies have on the emotions of
science students.
- Objective 3: Estimate the relationship between emotions and active methodologies.
- Objective 4: Evaluate student results in the learning environment and energy contents
through 7 (affordable and clean energy) and 13 (climate action) SDGs.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Implementation of Active Methodologies through the e-WORLD Innovation Project
The e-WORLD project develops two of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
of the 2030 Agenda: SDG 7, affordable and clean energy, and SDG 13, climate action.
Concomitantly, SDG 4, education quality, has also developed thanks to this project as active
methodologies, and thus, promoting different learning opportunities and experiences [5].
It is addressed to high school students and it is based on two active methodologies: cooper-
ative learning (CL) and project-based learning (PBL). The program consists of five chapters,
with a common thread being to help the virtual protagonist, Alex, to reduce global CO2
emissions. Thus, students are divided into groups and must solve several problems in
order to achieve the global objective of the project. The teacher acts as a guide in challenges
on air quality, sustainable mobility, climate change, and energy mixing, providing support
when necessary. All the information regarding the project teaching guide is published
on the Repsol Zinkers website [9]. The e-WORLD project was carried out over twelve
sessions of a subject of regional configuration of Castilla y León of Science Laboratory of
4th ESO [35]. This subject is based on student skills development that encourages them to
become capable of exploring facts and phenomena; in this case, related to energy, analyzing
problems, and organizing relevant information.

3.2. Research Instrument and Participants

The research methodology was based on an exploratory case study, where twelve
teaching sessions of two science classes were performed using the CL and PBL active
methodologies. The study used a non-probabilistic convenience sample, made up of
38 students in the fourth year of ESO from two different classrooms (4 ◦ C and 4 ◦ D). The
students ages ranged between 15 and 17 years, with an average of 16 years. There was only
one repeating student; 42% of the sample were men and 58% were women. There was no
control group since it was considered a specific sample for the case study of the e-WORLD
project. The students belonged to the public center Ordoño II High School (León, Spain).
The research was carried out during the 2020/2021 academic year.
A descriptive-comparative and non-experimental quantitative design was selected
for this study. For this purpose, a questionnaire was chosen as a research tool with the
aim of exploring the impact that the used active methodologies presented in the students’
learning process and their emotions. Two questionnaires were distributed and answered
by all the students in May 2021. The study of methodology and emotions were cross-
sectional (conducted once the project had finished), while the study of learning results was
longitudinal (pre-post test).
The first questionnaire was based on the original questionnaire reported by Dávila-
Acedo in [29] and adapted to the e-WORLD experience (Appendix A), following the
requirements of our sample and on suggestions from the Repsol Zinkers Foundation [9].
The questionnaire was divided into two main blocks and an extra initial block that collected
demographic characteristics of the students (class of the student, age, sex, and if they
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 5 of 17

repeated). The questionnaire was mixed and consisted of a total of 29 questions. For
the first draft of the questionnaire items, a group of experts in the teaching and learning
of experimental sciences (two university professors belonging to the area of didactics of
experimental sciences and the area of chemistry) met with the purpose of adapting the
questions of the reference questionnaire to the e-WORLD project. The questions were
chosen and a second draft was designed. Subsequently, a pilot test was carried out with
a twofold objective: to determine the need to modify, add, or eliminate questions, and to
detect possible mistakes or limitations. The questionnaire was revised and reformulated
for distribution to the students.
Questions in block 1 used a 5-point Likert-type scale with values to measure the degree
of perception/opinion/agreement about the statements made, where 1 was equivalent
to “not at all/barely” and 5 was “a lot/totally agree”. Questions in block 2 used the
multiple-choice option.
The first block Benefits of active methodologies evaluated the contribution of PBL and CL
methodologies in terms of student learning. It was divided into eight categories (A–H). A
to F were based on the main elements that the two active methodologies (CL and PBL) are
specific [15,17]. Categories A, B, and C described cooperative learning skills, and categories
D, E, and F described the project-based learning capabilities (see Table A1 in Appendix A):
A. Positive interdependence: referred to the process of acquiring a dual responsibility
for personal and group learning.
B. Personal and individual responsibility: referred to the student’s own awareness of
their individual learning and the enhancement of their cognitive abilities.
C. Self-assessment: referred to the reflection of the students towards their actions in the
activities carried out and their results.
D. Face-to-face interaction: referred to the fact that learning provides a pleasant climate
where classmates must help each other and become involved with the group, without
discriminating against classmates.
E. Interpersonal and group skills: referred to communication and respect among stu-
dents, approaching new colleagues, or conflict resolution capacity.
F. Feeling of leadership and involvement in the work: one of the main characteristics of
project-based learning is that students take the lead in their learning.
The two extra categories from block 1 (G and H) referred to student learning and
awareness regarding energy and climate related to SDGs 7 and 13.
G. Refers to the process of being aware of the necessity and commitment to contribute to
minimizing climate impact.
H. It is more technical and refers to learning concepts about energy and climate change,
referring to SGD 7 and 13.
The second block Emotions caused during the project was also based on the questionnaire
reported by Dávila-Acedo in [29]. It evaluated the emotions experienced by the students
during the learning process carried out through active methodologies. This block consisted
of 12 multiple choice questions. The categories in this block were equal to block 1, and
were indicated by the corresponding letter (see Table A2 of Appendix A).
The second questionnaire was a test owned by Repsol Thinkers Foundation, who
developed the e-WORLD project, and its information is protected [9]. It consisted of a
24-question test on climate change, energy, and its transformation. Each question had three
possible answers and only one was correct. The scores obtained were obtained by only
counting the correct answers. Students answered it twice: before and after the project,
and it was carried out to assess their evolution in the learning process to study possible
differences between pre and post test in terms of the knowledge acquired (see results in
Appendix A).
The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) of both questionnaires were
0.868 (active methodologies) and 0.810 (learning experience), indicating good reliability of
the instrument, although the study sample was relatively low.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 6 of 17

3.3. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

The main questionnaire (questionnaire 1) was developed using Google forms survey
administration software. Responses of Likert blocks were numerically converted as follows:
“Not at all”: 1, “Hardly”: 2, “Sometimes”: 3, “Frequently”; 4; “Totally”: 5.
All raw data were converted to absolute and relative frequencies, respectively. The
software used for calculations was R-studio software (2022 release).
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to study the differences between
the used methodologies [36]. When these differences were significant, a Tukey’s SHD test
was performed to conduct binary comparisons between the groups and, therefore, to know
which of the variables presented the highest influence [37,38].
In addition, for the sake of evaluating the relationship between emotions and cate-
gories, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out [39,40].
In order to study the differences between the knowledge acquired pre and post test,
an ANOVA was performed.
Finally, the significance levels taken in the present study were: p > 0.05, not significant,
and p ≤ 0.05, significant difference.

4. Results
Table 1 shows the results obtained from the student answers in relation to the skills
developed from cooperative learning and project-based learning methodologies. The
absolute frequency distribution indicated a majority of responses rated between medium
and higher scores corresponding with agree and totally agree in the Likert scale.

Table 1. Absolute frequencies of responses on active methodologies (block 1).

Methodologies/Learning Cooperative Learning Project Based Learning SGD-Learning

Categories A A A B B B C C D D E E F G G H H
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0
2 3 3 6 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 6 2 0 3 1
Likert
3 2 6 8 2 5 4 11 3 2 2 4 6 11 7 4 3 3
scale
4 18 8 12 14 10 10 13 22 10 19 14 22 11 16 14 22 13
5 15 21 12 22 22 23 14 12 23 17 18 9 9 11 19 10 21
Sample sum 38 38 38 38 38 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Source: own elaboration.

4.1. Analysis of Differences between Methodologies and Categories

The results of the ANOVA performed to compare the means of the values from the
different categories and the methodologies used in this study are described below. In this
sense, the results are presented in Table A3. Different tests (nine in total) were carried
out to compare the different variables of the study. When the ANOVA showed significant
differences, Tukey’s HSD test was performed (six in total).
The ANOVA test regarding methodologies as the variable object of study indicated
the existence of statistically significant differences between the two active methodologies
(p = 0.009, Test 1). Tukey’s HSD test indicated that the methodology CL is more attractive
for students than PBL (p = 0.009; Table A4, Test 1).
The ANOVA test including categories as the variable studied also indicated statistically
significant differences among categories of each methodology (p = 0.008) and between the
CL and PBL methodologies (p = 0.001) (Table A3, Test 2). Then, a Tukey’s HSD test was
performed to compare all of the categories from both methodologies. The results showed
significative differences for four categories (p < 0.05, Table A4, Test 2). The differences were
summarized as:
- F: Leadership feeling—B: Individual responsibility: the students better develop the
individual responsibility with CL methodology than leadership feeling with PBL.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 7 of 17

- B: Individual responsibility—A: Positive interdependence: students feel more devel-

opment in positive interdependence than individual responsibility when work with
CL methodology.
- F: Leadership feeling—E: Interpersonal/group sills: students develop more interper-
sonal than leaderships skills when considering BPL methodology.

4.2. Relation between Active Methodologies and Student Emotions

Table 2 shows the students’ emotions according to cooperative learning and project-
based learning methodologies among each category. Generally, the absolute frequency
distribution indicated that students felt more positive than negative emotions in all cate-
gories selected for the two methodologies and for SGDs learning aspects.

Table 2. Absolute frequencies of responses on active methodologies.

Cooperative Learning Project Based Learning SGDs Learning

Categories A A B B C C D D E F G H
Questions 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Joy (+) 13 5 10 8 3 3 10 9 9 7 7 9
Self-confidence (+) 12 7 9 11 6 10 9 2 5 16 8 3
Happiness (+) 5 5 16 9 2 6 8 12 6 7 4 12
Admiration (+) 0 2 4 7 4 4 3 1 0 6 1 1
Satisfaction (+) 6 12 8 20 9 5 19 17 1 7 24 15
Enthusiasm (+) 7 4 2 6 4 8 7 6 8 8 3 11
Surprise (+) 0 7 9 0 2 2 5 5 13 0 8 9
Motivation (+) 13 11 7 9 6 13 4 8 3 8 3 11
Fun/Enjoyment (+) 20 9 1 0 3 7 2 2 5 4 0 3
Boredom (−) 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 0
Anxiety (−) 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Fear (−) 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Disgust (−) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Sadness (−) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0
Anger (−) 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Nervousness (−) 4 5 0 2 14 8 0 0 3 1 0 0
Concern (−) 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
Embarrassment (−) 2 2 1 4 9 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
Total responses 88 77 69 79 65 69 67 66 65 67 61 74
Sample sum 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Source: own elaboration.

When statistical analysis was carried out, the ANOVA test indicated statistically
significant differences between methodologies (p = 0.02) and emotions (p ≤ 2 × 10−16 )
(Table A3, Test 3) so the active methodologies presented an impact in emotions expressed
by students.
The ANOVA test was repeated in order to assess if methodologies impacted more
positive or negative emotions. The ANOVA test used methodologies and emotions as
variables, where emotions were encoded with 1 or 0 for positive or negative (expressed
as feeling variable in the test), respectively. Results showed that there were statistically
significant differences between methodologies (p = 0.047) and between positive or negative
emotions (p ≤ 2 × 10−16 ) (Table A3, Test 4). Post-hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD test for
significance between methodologies and positive or negative emotions indicated that CL
(p = 0.047) impacted more positively for students than PBL, as they expressed more positive
emotions (p = 0.000) than negative with respect to this methodology (Table A4, Test 3).
Considering the categories and emotions, the ANOVA test indicated statistically
significant differences between both of them (emotions p ≤ 2 × 10−16 and categories
p = 0.000; Table A3, test 5), concomitant to Test 1. Again, the characteristic skills developed
thanks to each methodology were expressed by different emotions from students.
 Considering the categories and emotions, the ANOVA test indicated statistically sig-
nificant differences between both of them (emotions p ≤ 2 × 10−16 and categories p = 0.000;
Table A3, test 5), concomitant to Test 1. Again, the characteristic skills developed thanks
to each
Int. J. Environ. methodology
Res. Public were expressed by different emotions from students.
Health 2022, 19, 16977 8 of 17
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) between emotions and categories were per-
formed in order to group categories as a function of emotions. According to PCA results
(Figure 1a), the first dimension Principal Component
representedAnalysis (PCA) between
60% variance emotionsand
of emotions andthe
categories were
majority ofper-
formed in order to group categories as a function of emotions.
categories (with the exception of admiration) were linked to positive emotions. The cluster According to PCA results
(Figure 1a), the first dimension represented 60% variance of emotions and the majority of
dendrogram of emotions resulted in two first divisions, which mainly corresponded to
categories (with the exception of admiration) were linked to positive emotions. The cluster
positive and negative emotions,
dendrogram respectively,
of emotions resultedand wasfirst
in two concomitant to what
divisions, which was
mainly observed to
corresponded
in the PCA results (Figure 1b).
positive and negative emotions, respectively, and was concomitant to what was observed
in the PCA results (Figure 1b).

a b

Figure 1. (a) PCA result of categories as variables and emotions as individuals. Both CL variables
Figure 1. (a) PCA result of categories as variables and emotions as individuals. Both CL variables
(A, B, C) and BPL (D, E, F) are associated with positive emotions distribution. (b) Emotion clustering.
(A, B, C) and BPL (D, E, F) are associated with positive emotions distribution. (b) Emotion cluster-
ing. Finally, a Tukey’s HSD test was performed in order to differentiate the categories
according to the main emotions. The categories showed significant differences for the
learning
Finally, a Tukey’s process,
HSD wasp <performed
testwith 0.05 (Table A4,
in Test
order4). Only four categoriesthe
to differentiate showed significant
categories
differences, from which all differences were obtained between
according to the main emotions. The categories showed significant differences for theF category “leadership
feeling” and other three categories:
learning process, with p < 0.05 (Table A4, Test 4). Only four categories showed significant
- F (leadership feeling)—A (positive interdependence): students feel that gain interde-
differences, from which all differences
pendence wereCL
when working obtained
but lose between
individualFresponsibility
category “leadership
with BPL. feel-
ing” and other three
- categories:
F (leadership feeling)—E (interpersonal skills): students feel lose leadership but
- develop interpersonal
F (leadership feeling)—A skills in BPL.
(positive interdependence): students feel that gain interde-
- F (leadership feeling)—D (face to face interaction): students feel lose leadership but
pendence when working CL but lose individual responsibility with BPL.
develop more face to face in BPL.
- F (leadership feeling)—E (interpersonal skills): students feel lose leadership but de-
4.3. Active
velop interpersonal Methodologies
skills in BPL. Impact in Teaching-Learning Process
- The results
F (leadership feeling)—D (face reported in Table
to face 1 show the students
interaction): studentsanswers according
feel lose to SGD learning
leadership but
(categories G and H). The absolute frequency distribution indicated a majority of responses
develop more face to face in BPL.
ranged between 4 and 5 scores.
The ANOVA test did not show statistically significant differences (p = 0.329) (Table A3,
Test 6) between SDGs learning. In contrast, by considering the questions as variables yielded
a statistically significant difference among the questions of both SGDs learning (p = 0.020)
(Table A3, Test 7). However, the Tukey’s HSD test results showed that questions 2 and 4
were statistically more favorable than 1 and 3, which meant no statistical differences
between the questions of the G and H categories (p = 0.733, Table A4, Test 5). These results
suggested a similar learning of energy and climate change concepts by students.
 yielded a statistically significant difference among the questions of both SGDs learning (p
= 0.020) (Table A3, Test 7). However, the Tukey’s HSD test results showed that questions
2 and 4 were statistically more favorable than 1 and 3, which meant no statistical differ-
ences between the questions of the G and H categories (p = 0.733, Table A4, Test 5). These
results suggested a similar learning of energy and climate change concepts by
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977
students.
9 of 17
The impact that energy and climate change learning through SGD had on student
emotions was evaluated by the ANOVA test. The results indicated the existence of statis-
tically Thesignificant
impact that differences
energy and between emotions
climate change (p < 2 through
learning × 10−16), SGD
thus had
playing an important
on student
role, but no significant differences were found for categories G and
emotions was evaluated by the ANOVA test. The results indicated the existence of statisti- H (p = 0.694) (Table
A3,
callyTest 8).
significant − 16
differences between emotions (p < 2 × 10 ), thus playing an important
Theno
role, but ANOVA test
significant was performed
differences were found to also elucidateG which
for categories and H (pkind of (positive
= 0.694) (Table A3,or nega-
Test 8).
tive) emotions were statistically predominant. The results showed that positive and neg-
ativeThe ANOVAwere
emotions test was performed
significant to also elucidate
different (p < 2 × 10which kind ofA3,
−16) (Table (positive or and
Test 9) negative)
the Tukey’s
emotions were statistically predominant. The results showed that positive and negative
SHD test indicated that positive emotions−were predominant, regardless of the category
emotions were significant different (p < 2 × 10 16 ) (Table A3, Test 9) and the Tukey’s SHD
(p = 0, Table A4, Test 6). The Tukey’s HSD test for comparing pairs of emotions indicated
test indicated that positive emotions were predominant, regardless of the category (p = 0,
that
Tablesatisfaction
A4, Test 6). (p
The= Tukey’s
2.42 × 10 HSD) and
−14 surprise
test for (p = pairs
comparing 3.17 ×of10 −14) were the emotions most
emotions indicated that
positively
satisfactionexpressed
(p = 2.42 ×by 10the
−14 )students when
and surprise (p learning
= 3.17 × about
10−14 ) SGDs
were the7 and 13, respectively.
emotions most
positively expressed by the students when learning about SGDs 7 and 13, respectively.
Learning Results: Pre and Post Test
Learning Results: Pre and Post Test
The ANOVA test was performed to assess differences between mean scores in pre
The ANOVA test was performed to assess differences between mean scores in pre and
and post tests of energy and climate content performed by students, (A) before and (B)
post tests of energy and climate content performed by students, (A) before and (B) after
after the innovative project. Results (Appendix A, Table A5) suggested statistically signif-
the innovative project. Results (Appendix A, Table A5) suggested statistically significant
icant differences
differences between
between theof
the scores scores of pre
pre and postand
test post test (p being
(p = 0.015), = 0.015), being
a mean a meanofincrease
increase
of 0.577
0.577 points
points with with an improvement
an improvement range
range of 0.11 andof1.04
0.11 and(Figure
points 1.04 points (Figure
2). Thus, 2). Thus, a
a learning
learning
improvementimprovement
was found was found
thanks to thethanks to the active methodologies.
active methodologies.

Figure 2. Percentage of students who obtained the indicated grade range. Fail (grade < 5), Satisfactory
(5 ≤ grade < 7), Good (7 ≤ grade < 9), Excellent (grade ≥ 9). (A). Pre test, (B) Post test.
Figure 2. Percentage of students who obtained the indicated grade range. Fail (grade < 5), Satisfac-
5. Discussion
tory (5 ≤ grade < 7), Good (7 ≤ grade < 9), Excellent (grade ≥ 9). (A). Pre test, (B) Post test.
Objective 1 of the study aimed to analyze the different impact of the skills developed
5.
byDiscussion
working with the two active methodologies while learning; a very positive impact
was observed in both of them. These results corroborate the improvement in science edu-
Objective 1 of the study aimed to analyze the different impact of the skills developed
cation through active methodologies already described by many authors in the last few
by working with the two active methodologies while learning; a very positive impact was
decades [41,42]. When comparing the two methodologies carried out in this study, the
observed
differencesinobserved
both of were
them.greater.
These Inresults corroborate
fact, working with the improvement
the CL methodologyinallowed
sciencetheeducation
through active methodologies
highest development already described
of personal/interpersonal and by many authorsskills
interdependence in thein last few decades
students.
[41,42].
Further,When comparing
CL allowed studentsthetotwo methodologies
mature carried
in terms of their out in this
commitment study, the and
to individual differences
group responsibility for the learning process. Furthermore, it gave students the skills to
understand and respect each other, which allowed them to be comfortable with their class-
mates. This is especially important today, as classrooms are increasingly more culturally
diverse [43,44]. In contrast, BPL skills were less developed than in CL, which could be inter-
preted as a necessity to enforce critical and communicative attitudes and decision-making
capacity, as there are aspects that still have to be fully developed in students [45].
In relation to Objective 2, which aimed to evaluate the impact of the methodologies
of emotions in science students, a predominance of positive emotions was observed over
negative emotions. The challenge faced by teachers regarding reducing negative student
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 10 of 17

emotions of students in physics and chemistry subjects is being overcome [27,29,46] and,
as a consequence, students’ attitudes towards science have already improved [47].
The majority of positive emotions indicated that the learning process was favored. This
was especially found when using CL. For instance, González-Gómez et al. [48] explained
how the intervention of the CL methodology had improved the management of students’
fear, as well as moral emotions, promoting an improvement in learning. This methodology
developed a strong motivational process of belonging to a group and the ability to self-
manage help among colleagues [17], which could explain the positive emotions such as
happiness and satisfaction. A majority of students felt self-confident, capable of regulating
their emotions and generating a positive experience of the project [49]. These results were
similar to those described by Aguilar et al. [50], as they observed that chemistry students in
the fourth year of science developed greater motivation in the classroom when designing a
specific program for that subject using PBL and CL.
Although negative feelings were minor in terms of presence, it is important to dis-
cuss what kind of reasons can explain their appearance. Emotions of fear, boredom, or
disgust were considered to deactivate the teaching-learning process [51]. The lack of crit-
icism and communication, more related to BPL skills, could reflected negative emotions
expressed by students. These emotions are considered unpleasant but exciting, according
to Dávila-Acedo et al. [27], and they promote confusion, but, when they generate tension,
they can be considered as activating emotions of the teaching-learning process [51].
Related to the Objective 3 of the study, where we tried to estimate the relationship
between emotions and active methodologies, the results showed that both methodologies
influenced student emotions. In addition, students expressed a majority of positive emo-
tions, such as happiness, satisfaction, or surprise, contrary to those generalized by students
in science studies with traditional methodologies [29]. Emotions mark the development
of student skills within the learning methodology, with cooperative learning and positive
emotions being the most predominant. Although the main expressed negative emotions,
nervousness and embarrassment, may generate tension, together they can act as activating
emotions in the teaching-learning process. These results indicate that it is necessary to
continue working on the development of social skills in students, since they are fundamen-
tal for their professional future. In current work environments, a change in teammates is
frequent, which must be faced with emotional regulation due to the association between
work productivity and being emotionally competent [32].
Focusing on Objective 4, related to learning about the environment and energy, the
results showed the same trend that other previous researches had found in the literature, in
which CL was applied to all school stages [52] or when PBL was used to teach robotics in
secondary school and improve STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathe-
matics) learning [53]. Active methodologies can favor the capacity for meaningful learning
through an increase in student motivation, thanks to encouraging positive emotions [54]
and the ability to learn [18,19].

Limitations and Future Research Lines

The limitation of this study was the sample size. However, it can be justified by
the kind of research performed, based on an exploratory case study methodology. In the
literature, we found many case studies with similar small sample sizes [55–57]. For instance,
Brownell et al. [58] concluded that even small sample sizes are important, as the results
could provide an indicator of potential directions for improving teaching and learning.
Another work justifies case studies from sample sizes of six individuals as, in education,
parameters expansion cannot be controlled from the beginning of the research [59].
As future research, it is proposed to further the study of the interconnection between
emotions and learning, in addition to seeing how other current methodologies, such as
STEM projects and service learning, influence emotions and favor ESD. It is important
to know whether the involvement of students in these methodologies produces changes
in the life habits of adolescents towards more socio-sustainable habits. Following this
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 11 of 17

idea, it is also important to avoid territorial risk of bias in the study. Thus, for future
research and the distribution of the same or new questionnaires to other high schools, we
should first analyze what kind of data may produce territorial bias risk, similarly to the
study by Bellantuono et al. that presented a comparison between the university academic
rankings affected by bias [60]. A possible way to overcome bias could be by creating a
more extensive questionnaire with information regarding contextualization of social and
economic conditions to students [61].

6. Conclusions
From the need to promote the paradigm shift of formal education towards a model
that promotes the achievement of the SDGs and the goals described in the 2030 Agenda,
innovative projects applicable to the classroom are essential to carry out this achievement
and to facilitate the process from teachers to students [1,3,62]. Thus, in recent years, there
has been an increase in the number of projects focused on this purpose, making it more
necessary to prove their effectiveness through evidence from educational research [63,64].
After the results obtained in the present work, it can be concluded that CL and PBL
methodologies are efficient for the improvement of skills and knowledge related to climate
change and energy in the students, provoking positive emotions in a higher frequency, thus
favoring meaningful learning. The use of active methodologies minimized the negative
impact on learning in science subjects related to sustainable development. Therefore, CL
and PBL active methodologies can be potential resources for the emotional and cognitive
improvement of the science teaching-learning process in secondary schools.
The comparison of the two methodologies revealed that CL allowed students to
acquire personal and group responsibility in learning to a higher extent than PBL, which
allowed them to develop their own learning objectives, expressing positive emotions that
favor learning. As for the PBL, students had lower achievement in terms of social skills,
such as critical attitude, interpersonal communication, and decision-making, although it
did not directly impact either negative emotions or the learning objectives from the ESD
approach perspective.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.L. and C.B.F.; methodology, A.L. and C.B.F.; validation,
R.L. and F.J.P.; formal analysis, R.L.; investigation, A.L.; data curation, A.L.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.L.; writing—review and editing, A.L., C.B.F., R.L. and F.J.P.; supervision, C.B.F.; fund-
ing acquisition, C.B.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: APCs have been supported by the University of León. A. Lozano contract is funded by the
Ministry of Universities and the European Union Next GenerationEU/PRTR.i and by the Recovery,
Transformation and Resilience Plan.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due
not involving personally identifiable nor sensitive data.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article. Additional data are available on
request from corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Mª Adela Muñoz Morcillo, teacher of Chemistry
at Ordoño II highschool, for her leadership of the innovation project and involvement in this re-
search, and Carolina Grases Mendoza, from Repsol Zinkers Foundation, for her assessment of
questionnaire design.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 12 of 17

Appendix A

Table A1. Self-made questionnaire for students based on Dávila et al. (2017), (Google forms
application) [29].

STUDENTS’ DATA:
Age: Sex: man/woman Are you a repeater student?
yes/no
BLOCK 1. BENEFITS OF ACTIVE METHODOLOGIES
Asses from 1 to 5 how much you agree with the following statements in relation to the work done during the e-WOLRD project.
(1. Not at all/hardly agree—5. Totally agree/very much.
Nº CAT. ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5
Among all of us we have been able to manage the tasks to finish them on time. Doing
1 A
homework is a group goal, so my success is everyone’s.
2 A There was no group leader in the activities, we have worked together to complete the tasks.
3 A We were all interested in learning and so have helped each other.
4 B I have assumed my responsibility in what I had to do in each task.
5 B I’ve asked my teammates for help when I’ve got stuck on what to do on homework.
I have helped a colleague when I thought I could help him or when they have asked me for
6 B
help in the group.
During the activities, everyone has contributed with their ideas and knowledge, so I have
7 C
improved my communication skills.
During the performance of the tasks, I have been able to listen to my colleagues and
8 C
accept criticism.
Working in a group and confronting different points of view has made us obtain
9 D
better results.
My role group has worked well and coordinated, we have managed to learn new content on
10 D
energy and sustainability.
11 E Working in a group has allowed me to get to know my colleagues better.
12 E We have been able to agree to carry out the task when there have been different ideas.
I have felt like a protagonist, since learning depended on my interest and abilities, which has
13 F
also favored my creativity.
Involvement in the project has allowed me to be aware of the challenges of the energy
14 G
transition and climate change, and I would like to create concern in my family and friends.
What I have learned has helped me to become more aware of my habits, and to contribute to
15 G
have a more sustainable planet.
16 H I have learned new energy contents that are useful in my day to day life.
17 H The methodology to learn new content has been easier than in a normal class.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 13 of 17

Table A2. Emotions caused during the project based on Dávila et al. (2017) [29], (Block 2). Indicate
the emotions that you think best fit EACH SITUATION of those listed below.

Positive Emotions Negative Emotions

Self-Conficdent

Embarrased
Disgusting
Motivated
Surprised
Cheerful

Satisfied

Nervous
Amazed

Worried
Anxiety
Excited
Happy

Boring

Angry
Fear
Fun

Sad
Working together as a team and has
18 A
made me feel . . .
When I had to solve the calculation of
19 A energy mix (simulator) with my team I
have felt . . .
When I have had some difficulty in
challenges on climate change/air
20 B quality, energy mix calculations, etc.,
but a member of the group has helped
me, I have felt . . .
When I have been able to help a
21 B
colleague to do a task I have felt . . .
When I have made oral presentations I
22 C
have felt . . .
When I have participated in debates in
23 C climate change or in air quality I
have felt . . .
Learning new things from my own
24 D work and research have made
me feel . . .
The project results obtained by working
25 D
as a team have made me feel . . .
Changing work teammates has made
26 E
me feel . . .
Having a role in the project has made
27 F
me feel . . .
When I can understand scientific news
28 G and those related to climate change and
the energy transition, I feel . . .
When I have carried out practical work,
29 H which I can also apply to daily life, with
my team I have felt . . .

Table A3. ANOVA results.

Test nº Categories F Value Pr (>F)

Test 1 Methodology 6.964 0.0086
Active methodologies
Methodology 7.166 0.0077
and skills Test 2
Category 4.617 0.0011
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 14 of 17

Table A3. Cont.

Test nº Categories F Value Pr (>F)

Methodology 5.386 0.0206
Test 3
Emotions 35.172 <2 × 10−16
Active methodologies Methodology 3.961 0.0469
and emotions Test 4
Feeling 227.68 <2 × 10−16
Emotions 36.392 <2 × 10−16
Test 5
Category 4.641 0.00035
Test 6 Category SGDs Learning 0.957 0.329
Test 7 Questions 3.367 0.02
Active methodologies Category 0.0155 0.694
and learning process Test 8
and emotions Emotions <2 × 10−16
Category 0.117 0.733
Test 9
Feeling 740.334 <2 × 10−16

Table A4. Tukey’s SHD results.

Comparison Diff P Adjusted

Test 1 CL-BPL 0.2461 0.0086
Active methodologies F-B −0.6012 0.0175
and skills Test 2 B-A 0.4 0.0299
F-E −0.5789 0.0432
CL-BPL 0.0317 0.0469
Test 3
(+)—(−) 0.2954 0
Active methodologies
F-A −0.0919 0.0027
and emotions
Test 4 F-E −0.0993 0.0122
F-D −0.0841 0.0257
Test 5 H-G −0.009 0.7331
Active methodologies and
Test 6 (+)—(−) 0.894 0
learning process and emotions

Table A5. E-word test Results.

Results Results
Student Number Pre-Test Post-Test Student Number Pre-Test Post-Test
1 5 7.5 21 9.2 8.8
2 5.8 7.5 22 8.3 6.3
3 7.5 8.8 23 7.5 7.5
4 6.7 8.8 24 8.3 7.1
5 8.3 6.7 25 7.5 8.3
6 8.3 7.9 26 8.3 6.7
7 7.5 8.8 27 5.8 7.9
8 7.5 7.9 28 7.5 5.8
9 5 8.3 29 9.2 7.9
10 5 7.9 30 6.7 7.9
11 6.7 7.5 31 6.7 7.5
12 6.7 8.8 32 7.5 9.2
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 15 of 17

Table A5. Cont.

Results Results
Student Number Pre-Test Post-Test Student Number Pre-Test Post-Test
13 9.2 7.1 33 6.7 6.3
14 7.5 8.3 34 8.3 6.7
15 7.5 7.5 35 8.3 8.8
16 6.7 8.3 36 8.3 9.6
17 7.5 7.9 37 8.3 8.8
18 7.5 9.2 38 6.7 7.5
19 6.7 6.7 39 7.5 8.8
20 5 7.9

References
1. Rositano, F.; Moreira, C.J.; Durand, P.B. Antecedente de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible: Los objetivos de desarrollo del
milenio. In Aportes de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para una Agricultura Sustentable en la Argentina: Una Mirada Social Desde la
Universidad; Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Agronomía: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2020; pp. 2–15.
2. Bastida-Izaguirre, D.; Ochoa-Villanueva, X. Cambio climático, una mirada desde los educadores en formación y la importancia
de su enseñanza desde un enfoque interdisciplinar. REAyS 2021, 3, 2601. [CrossRef]
3. UNESCO. Education Transforms Lives; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2017.
4. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de Diciembre, por la Que se Modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de Mayo, de Educación. Boletín
Oficial del Estado (BOE), 340. pp. 122868–122953. Available online: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-1
7264 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
5. Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030. Estrategia de Desarrollo Sostenible 2030. Un proyecto de País para Hacer Realidad la
Agenda 2030; Secretaría de Estado para la Agenda 2030: Madrid, Spain, 2020. Available online: https://www.mdsocialesa2030.
gob.es/agenda2030/documentos/eds-cast-acce.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2022).
6. OECD. Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. OECD Publishing:
Paris, France. [CrossRef]
7. González-Robles, A.; Vázquez-Vílchez, M. Propuesta educativa para promover compromisos ambientales a través de los Objetivos
de Desarrollo Sostenible en Bachillerato: El juego S.O.S Civilizaciones. REurEDC 2022, 19, 1103. [CrossRef]
8. Pellicer, E.; Verdejo, M.; Calero, M.; Vilches, A. Acción por el clima: El tratamiento del ODS 13 en la enseñanza de Física y Química
en Educación Secundaria. In Aportaciones de la Educación Científica para un Mundo Sostenible, Proceedings of the Actas electrónicas del
XI Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en la Didáctica de las Ciencias, Lisboa, Portugal, 7–10 September 2021; Revista Enseñanza
de las Ciencias; Publisher: Barcelona, Spain, 2021; pp. 1105–1108.
9. Fundación Repsol (s.f.) Proyecto e-WORLD. Available online: https://www.fundacionrepsol.com/es/zinkers (accessed on
1 May 2021).
10. González García, F.M. Los mapas conceptuales de J.D. Novak como instrumentos para la investigación en didáctica de las ciencias
experimentales. Enseñanza Cienc. Rev. Investig. Exp. Didácticas 1992, 10, 148–158. Available online: https://www.raco.cat/index.
php/Ensenanza/article/view/39815 (accessed on 14 November 2022). [CrossRef]
11. Luy-Montejo, C. El Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas (ABP) en el desarrollo de la inteligencia emocional de estudiantes
universitarios. Propósitos Represent. 2019, 7, 353–368. [CrossRef]
12. Martínez Rodríguez, R.C.; Benítez Corona, L.; Villanueva Ibáñez, M. Cooperative Learning in the Implementation of Teaching
Chemistry (Didactic Instrumentation) in Engineering in México. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 174, 2920–2925. [CrossRef]
13. Valdez, J.E.; Bungihan, M.E. Problem-based learning approach enhances the problem solving skills in chemistry of high school
students. JOTSE 2019, 9, 282–294. [CrossRef]
14. Vega, V. Project-Based Learning Research Review: Evidence-Based Components of Success. 2015. Available online: https:
//www.edutopia.org/pbl-research-evidence-based-components (accessed on 1 November 2022).
15. Cantador, I. La competición como mecánica de gamificación en el aula: Una experiencia aplicando aprendizaje basado en
problemas y aprendizaje cooperativo. In Gamificación en las Aulas Universitarias; Contreras, R.S., Eguia, J.L., Eds.; Institut de la
Comunicació: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Bellaterra, Spain, 2016; pp. 68–97.
16. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In Active learning—Beyond the Future; Intec
Open: London, UK, 2018. [CrossRef]
17. Pliego Prenda, N. El aprendizaje cooperative y sus ventajas en la educación intercultural. Hekademos: Rev. Educ. Digit. 2011, 8,
63–76. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3746890 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
18. Herrada Valverde, R.I.; Baños Navarro, R. Revisión de experiencias de aprendizaje cooperativo en ciencias experimentales. Campo
Abierto. Rev. De Educ. 2018, 37, 157–170. [CrossRef]
19. Peralta Lara, D.C.; Guamán Gómez, V.J. Metodologías activas para la enseñanza y aprendizaje de los estudios sociales. Rev. Soc. Y
Tecnol. 2020, 3, 2–10. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 16 of 17

20. Gordon, H.R. This is Our School!: Race and Community Resistance to School Reform; NYU Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
21. OCDE. El programa PISA de la OCDE. Qué es y para Qué Sirve. Available online: https://www.oecd.org>pisa (accessed on
10 May 2021).
22. Ceniceros Ceniceros, S.Y.; Vázquez Soto, M.A.; Fernández Escárzaga, J. La inteligencia emocional y el aprendizaje significativo
Emotional intelligence and meaningful learning. CAGI 2017, 4, 1–18.
23. Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
24. Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence; Bantam Books: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
25. Sandoval, M.; Castro, R. La inteligencia emocional y el rendimiento académico. In Psicología y Educación: Presente y Futuro; ACIPE:
Alicante, Spain, 2016; pp. 1292–1294.
26. Hasanzadeh, R.; Shahmohamadi, F. Study of emotional intelligence and learning strategies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 29,
1824–1829. [CrossRef]
27. Mellado, V.; Borrachero, A.B.; Brígido, M.; Melo, L.V.; Dávila, M.A.; Cañada, F.; Garritz, A.; Mellado, L.; Vázquez, B.; Jiménez, R.;
et al. Las emociones en la enseñanza de las ciencias. Enseñanza Cienc. Rev. Investig. Exp. Didácticas 2014, 32, 11–36. [CrossRef]
28. Dávila-Acedo, M.A.; Del Rosal Sánchez, I.; Bermejo García, M.L. ¿Qué Emociones Despiertan Los Contenidos Relacionados De
Física Y Química En El Aprendizaje de los Alumnos De Educación Secundaria? Rev. INFAD Psicol. 2016, 2, 329–336. [CrossRef]
29. Dávila-Acedo, M.A. Las emociones y sus causas en el aprendizaje de Física y Química, en el alumnado de Educación Secundaria.
Rev. Eureka Sobre Enseñanza Divulg. Cienc. 2017, 14, 570–586. [CrossRef]
30. Weiner, B. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
31. De la Blanca de la Paz, S.; Hidalgo Navarrete, J.; Burgos Bolós, C.; Moreno Fuentes, E. El Binomio Aprendizaje Científico–
Emoción, una fórmula perfecta. Enseñanza Cienc. Rev. Investig. Exp. Didácticas 2017, Extra, 893–898. Available online: https:
//raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/334866 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
32. Humphries, M.L.; Williams, B.V.; May, T. Early childhood teachers’ perspectives on social-emotional competence and learning in
urban classrooms. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 2018, 34, 157–179. [CrossRef]
33. Greco, C.; Ison, M.S. Emociones positivas y solución de problemas interpersonales: Su importancia en el desarrollo de competen-
cias sociales en la mediana infancia. Perspect. Psicol. 2011, 8, 20–29.
34. Mendoza Vargas, E.Y.; Boza Valle, J.A.; Morales Sornoza, A.M. Exporting cocoa in times of the COVID 19 pandemic and its impact
on the value chain. J. Bus. Entrep. Stud. 2020, 6, 224–240. Available online: http://journalbusinesses.com/index.php/revista
(accessed on 20 September 2022).
35. DECRETO 39/2022, de 29 de Septiembre, por el Que se Establece la Ordenación y el Currículo de la Educación Secundaria
Obligatoria en la COMUNIDAD de Castilla y León. Boletín de Castilla y León (BOCYL), 190. pp. 48850–49541. Available
online: https://www.educa.jcyl.es/es/resumenbocyl/decreto-39-2022-29-septiembre-establece-ordenacion-curricul (accessed
on 30 September 2022).
36. Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2010, 15, 625–632. [CrossRef]
37. Guadagnoli, L.; Mutlu, E.A.; Doerfler, B.; Ibrahim, A.; Brenner, D.; Taft, T.H. Food-related quality of life in patients with
inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Qual. Life Res. 2019, 28, 2195–2205. [CrossRef]
38. Alexandrova-Karamanova, A.; Todorova, I.; Montgomery, A.; Panagopoulou, E.; Costa, P.; Baban, A.; Davas, A.; Milosevic, M.;
Mijakoski, D. Burnout and health behaviors in health professionals from seven European countries. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ.
Health 2016, 89, 1059–1075. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Abdi, H.; Williams, L.J. Principal Component Analysis. WIREs Comput. Stat. 2010, 2, 433–459. [CrossRef]
40. Bro, R.; Smilde, A.K. Principal Component Analysis. Anal. Methods 2014, 6, 2812–2831. [CrossRef]
41. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M.K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M.P. Active learning increases student
performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 8410–8415. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Eddy, S.L.; Converse, M.; Wenderoth, M.P. PORTAAL: A classroom observation tool assessing evience-based teaching practices
for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2015, 14, ar23. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
43. Ferguson-Patrick, K. Cooperative Learning in Swedish Classrooms: Engagement and Relationships as a Focus for Culturally
Diverse Students. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 312. [CrossRef]
44. Leopold, H.; Smith, A. Implementing Reflective Group Work Activities in a Large Chemistry Lab to Support Collaborative
Learning. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 7. [CrossRef]
45. Larmer, J.; Mergendoller, J.R. Seven essentials for Project-Based Learning. Educ. Leadersh. 2010, 68, 1–4.
46. Brígido, M.; Couso, D.; Gutiérrez, C.; Mellado, V. The emotions about teaching and learning science: A study of prospective
primary teachers in three Spanish universities. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2013, 12, 299–311. [CrossRef]
47. Vázquez, Á.; Manassero, M.A. El declive de las actitudes hacia la ciencia de los estudiantes: Un indicador inquietante para la
educación científica. Rev. Eureka Sobre Enseñanza Divulg. Cienc. 2008, 5, 274–292. [CrossRef]
48. González-Gómez, A.L.; Farrington, D.P.; Llorent, V.J. Descriptive and quasi-experimental studies about moral emotions, online
empathy, anger management, and their relations with key competencies in primary education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2021, 18, 11584. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Liu, W.C.; Wang, C.K.J.; Tan, O.S.; Koh, C.; Ee, J. A self-determination approach to understanding students’ motivation in project
work. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2009, 19, 139–145. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16977 17 of 17

50. Aguilar Cañizalez, M.d.v.; Inciarte González, A.; de Jesús Parra, Y. Aprendizaje Basado En Problemas y Aprendizaje Cooperativo
como Estrategia Didáctica Integrada para La Enseñanza de la Química. REDHECS 2011, 11, 199–219.
51. Lucas-Oliva, I.; Toledo-Vega, G.; Núñez-Román, F. From Neurodidactics to Language Teaching and Learning: The Emotional
Approach. TPL 2022, 12, 1457–1467. [CrossRef]
52. Rivera-Pérez, S.; León-del-Barco, B.; Fernandez-Rio, J.; González-Bernal, J.J.; Iglesias Gallego, D. Linking Cooperative Learning
and Emotional Intelligence in Physical Education: Transition across School Stages. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5090.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Arís, N.; Orcos, L. Educational Robotics in the Stage of Secondary Education: Empirical Study on Motivation and STEM Skills.
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 73. [CrossRef]
54. Santos Ellakuria, I. Fundamentos para el aprendizaje significativo de la biodiversidad basados en el constructivismo y las
metodologías activas. Rev. Innovación Buenas Prácticas Docentes 2019, 8, 90–101. [CrossRef]
55. Park, R.; Meredith, A.; Abell, S.K. The design, enactment, and experience of inquiry-based instruction in undergraduate science
education: A case study. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 591–607. [CrossRef]
56. Davis, G.; O’callaghan, F.; Knox, K. Sustainable attitudes and behaviours amongst a sample of non-academic staff: A case study
from an Information Services Department, Griffith University, Brisbane. Int. J. Sustain.High. Educ. 2009, 10, 136–151. [CrossRef]
57. Kesici, S. A sample for guidance application of distance education technologies: A case study on graduate students’ opinions
about web-assisted career guidance systems. Turkish Online J. Distance Educ. 2008, 9, 139–156.
58. Brownell, S.E.; Kloser, M.J.; Fukami, T.; Shavelson, R.J. Context matters: Volunteer bias, small sample size, and the value of
comparison groups in the assessment of research-based undergraduate introductory biology lab courses. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ.
2013, 14, 176–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Guetterman, T. Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health
sciences. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2015, 16. [CrossRef]
60. Bellantuono, L.; Monaco, A.; Amoroso, N.; Aquaro, V.; Bardoscia, M.; Loiotile, A.D.; Lombardi, A.; Tangaro, S.; Bellotti, R.
Territorial bias in university rankings: A complex network approach. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4995. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Barrera, I.; Myers, R. Estándares y evaluación docente en México: El estado del debate. Ser. Doc. 2011, 59, 3–42.
62. Gómez, A.C.; Blanco Fontao, C. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: Análisis de su conocimiento e intereses educativos del
profesorado de Secundaria en formación de la Universidad de León. RIE 2022, 20, 240–256.
63. Duralla, E.; Carter, C.; Burns, K. Transdisciplinary education and innovation through STEAM. In Proceedings of the Mini-
Conference on Transdisciplinary Research and Design (TRaD) 2022, Oulu, Finland, 14 February 2022.
64. Khan, P.A.; Johl, S.K.; Akhtar, S.; Asif, M.; Salameh, A.A.; Kanesan, T. Open Innovation of Institutional Investors and Higher
Education System in Creating Open Approach for SDG-4 Quality Education: A Conceptual Re-view. J. Open Inov. Technol. Mark.
Complex. 2022, 8, 49. [CrossRef]