Formal education is institutionalized and systematic, characterized by curricula and assessments (Nikonanou, 2015). Informal learning takes place throughout the individual’s life, is neither organized nor systematic, often has no “purpose” and is offered by the individual’s everyday life (Filippoupoliti, 2015). On the contrary, non-formal educational environments, such as museums, feature organized experiential learning outside traditional classrooms, using engagement which results in richer, more interesting learning and deeper understanding (Filippoupoliti, 2015; Maridakis, 2015).

A museum program with specific cognitive and measurable outcomes has a duration of 1 to 2 hours, concentrates on selected specimens and employs complex assessments on the personal and sociocultural ways of understanding (Fourliga & Veropoulidou, 2022). However, the efficiency of a museum program depends on the educators’ knowledge and abilities: communication skills, teaching strategies and expertise (Filippoupoliti, 2015).

The eternal role of museums is to promote scientific literacy and awareness and to address educational inequalities, thus uniting the school curriculum with either an informal or a non-formal experiential learning, while also supporting teachers’ professional development (Hammerness et al., 2023; Wunar & Kowrach, 2017). This union connects the theoretical scientific information to real-life events and provides details on multidisciplinary subjects, like climate change (Chaniotou et al., 2025; Gata et al., 2023; Georgiou et al., 2022; Mujtaba et al., 2018). In other words, museums such as natural history and science museums, can complement the traditional classroom (Falk & Dierking, 2010; Mutjaba et al., 2018) and encourage ecological thinking and behavior (Ardoin et al., 2020; Ballantyne & Packer, 2009).

Interdisciplinary methods, incorporating scientific information and methods from multiple sciences, help students make connections between biology, geology, history and technology. In addition to the engagement offered by museums and the complex issues they feature, interdisciplinary education is essential in museum programs (Jensen & Schack, 2006; Wunar & Kowrach, 2017), especially in environmental programs which examine complicated topics, such as climate change (You, 2017). These interdisciplinary programs can promote skills like cooperation, empathy, problem solving, social interaction and identity strength (Berardinetti et al., 2024).

Experiential education though interaction with exhibitions has shown enhanced understanding and long-lasting knowledge preservation among students (Anderson et al., 2000; Wunar & Kowrach, 2017). To measure these outcomes, a vigorous evaluation that compares the knowledge, skills and/or attitudes before and after the program (Gata et al., 2023; Monroe et al., 2017) is crucial to determine the impact of the program and the guidelines for future programs (Hammerness et al., 2023; Stern et al., 2013). However, the complexity of educational interventions, which are often delivered to heterogeneous groups with diverse backgrounds, requires careful selection of assessment tools and statistical methods. This is particularly true when the data does not meet normality assumptions, requiring the use of nonparametric techniques (Field, 2018; Ramachandran & Tsokos, 2021).

Educational museum programs are evaluated based on the incorporation of conservation biology topics, educational tools and statistical methods in order to provide unique learning environments (Falk & Dierking, 2010; Mujtaba et al., 2018). Based on the engagement and deep understanding through experiential educational methods (Allen & Gutwill, 2009; Ballantyne & Packer, 2009), effective environmental programs are able to strengthen knowledge and alter attitudes resulting in well informed citizens who comprehend the environmental threats and challenges (Ardoin et al., 2020; Jensen & Schack, 2006) and are able to solve problems associated with biodiversity conservation (Bonney et al., 2009; Monroe et al., 2017). To examine the effectiveness of the program, thorough statistical analysis must be followed, using the appropriate tests and tools to confirm the results. When the data distribution deviates from normality, non-parametric methods have to be used (Ballantyne & Packer, 2009; Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007).

Internationally, museums offer programs for endangered species that combine scientific research, interactive learning, and conservation advocacy. Whale Museum (2025), for example, offers an educational program (“Southern resident killer whales”) that educates students about the biology, ecology, social structure, and conservation measures surrounding whales. The program includes interactive activities, such as identifying whales by their characteristics and learning about federal population recovery plans, to deepen and understand endangered species and ways to conserve them (Whale Museum, 2025). Similarly, Desert Museum’s (2025) endangered species program provides an educational program in which students examine live animals and biological facts, participating in discussions about endangered species in the Sonoran Desert Region. As a result, they become informed about the reasons why species are threatened, the human impacts on ecosystems, and the country’s legislative conservation measures (Desert Museum, 2025).

Studies show that students find it easier to recognize mammals and birds, as well as the threats these groups face (Chyleńska & Rybska, 2018; Kattmann, 2012). On the other hand, educational programs on environmental issues, given Greece’s rich biodiversity and the growing number of endangered species (IUCN, 2025; NECCA, 2024), should address lesser-known animal groups that students may encounter in their country, such as invertebrates or reptiles. However, while there is ongoing research on the biology and conservation of Greek reptiles and mollusks, there is a clear gap in specialized educational interventions targeting these groups. It is also important for educational interventions to address not only knowledge, but also a positive attitude towards non-formal education that raises awareness about endangered animals and promotes conservation behaviors.

In this study a museum educational program is evaluated to validate its ability to increase high school students’ knowledge on endangered reptiles and mollusks of Greece and their ecological threats. Therefore, the hypotheses include whether the students’ scores in knowledge questions would improve statistically after the museum program and if the results would show consistency among the different grades. The findings aim to guide future targeted environmental education strategies in museums or other non-formal educational environments.

In this study, data were collected from high school students from public schools in Greece, who randomly participated in the educational program held at the Zoological Museum of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The data collection process was carried out in three stages. In the first stage, a pilot test was carried out with opportunistic sampling involving 29 students who attended their school’s biology club. Then, the topics were taught to two study groups (22 and 25 students). Finally, based on the results of these groups (a total of 76 samples), four questions were added in order to assess more aspects of the topic. These 76 samples were not included in the final group of 112 students.

In the end, the study involved 112 high school students (46 girls, 63 boys, 3 others) aged 12 to 15, who were enrolled in various grades: 42.9% in the first year, 20.5% second year, and 36.6% third year. As shown in Figure 1, most students were Greek citizens residing mainly in the Attica Region, with a minority from other regions and nationalities. The initial pilot and test groups (76 students in total) helped to improve the questionnaires for clarity and appropriateness but were excluded from the final analysis.

The materials used for the museum program included photographs of the exhibits that were both addressed by the program and are located in the Zoology Museum of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The species that were chosen to be introduced through the photographs were the following due to their conservation status (IUCN, 2025; NECCA, 2024):

Students also received two questionnaires (as shown in Appendix A and Appendix B), each of which contained 4-5 demographic questions, 15 knowledge questions with three possible answers (“yes”, “no”, “I don’t know”) and 5-6 attitude questions with a five-point Likert scale (Joshi et al., 2015). The knowledge questions in the pre-program questionnaire highlighted both the misconceptions and the lack of factual knowledge of each student on basic ecological and environmental subjects, for example on predators and human intervention, respectively. The knowledge questions in the post-program questionnaire emphasized the knowledge gain of each student due to their participation in the program. The attitude questions examined student’s opinions on the subject of biology and in the program they participated.

Two worksheets (Appendix C and Appendix D) were also given to each participant. The first worksheet included questions on characteristics, habitats and threats to help students with their tour, while the second worksheet was a matching exercise. Finally, the students filled in an evaluation sheet (Appendix E), which numbered five animals, different from those students encountered in the program. Students chose two of the five given animals and generalized their new knowledge, in order to list a total of five possible threats. On every sheet, in order to remain anonymous, students wrote a pseudonym given by the educator.

The intervention was a museum-based educational program held at the Zoological Museum of the University of Athens, focused on endangered reptiles and mollusks in Greece and lasted about an hour, engaging students in interactive, experiential learning. Under our supervision, the students acted as guides for the species assigned to them, competing for rewards based on the knowledge they acquired through exploration and discussion.

At the beginning, students filled in the first questionnaire (Appendix A) individually, while being given a pseudonym. Then, students were divided into groups of four and each group was given a photo of the species mentioned before. Each student also received a tour plan (worksheet 1–Appendix C) which they completed collaboratively in their group, according to what they saw in the photo or what they assumed about the animal assigned to them, describing the morphology, habitat and probable threats. After this initial contact with the animals, the students were guided to the museum displays, where they searched for their animal and corrected or added information that they identified both by reading the descriptions and by looking closely at the animal.

After touring the museum, revising and adding notes with the help of targeted questions from the educator, the tours began. While one team presented their animal, the other teams filled in the second worksheet (Appendix D), matching animals to their threats. When all the teams were done, each student completed the evaluation sheet (Appendix E) individually by choosing two animals different from those met on the tour and writing down in total five possible threats. While waiting for the announcement of the winner with the best performance, students filled in individually the second questionnaire (Appendix B).

The statistical analysis was performed on SPSS (version 29.0.2.0), using the basic normality tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, skewness, and kurtosis) to assess the data distribution (Massey, 1951; DeCarlo, 1997). Deviating from normality, non-parametric tests were used. The Wilcoxon (1945) signed-rank test was used to compare students’ answers before and after the program, the Kruskal-Wallis H test (Kruskal & Wallis, 1952; Laerd Statistics, 2025) to detect differences between scores and the Dunn-Bonferroni (Dunn, 1961, 1964) pairwise comparisons to highlight statistically significant results (Storey & Tibshirani, 2003).

To inspect type I error rates, three multiple comparison corrections were used: Bonferroni, Holm-Bonferroni (Holm, 1979), and Benjamini-Hochberg (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), while the reliability of the questionnaires was confirmed through their internal consistency check with Cronbach’s (1951) alpha (> .7), in spite of the non-parametric analysis (Bulmer, 1966; Wilk & Gnanadesikan, 1968; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019).

Prior to the main study, 76 additional samples were collected during the pilot (29 students) and second trial (47 students) phases but were excluded from the final analysis due to different questionnaire formats. The data from both the pilot and second trial showed non-normality and statistically significant improvements in knowledge, albeit with lower effect sizes and less pronounced changes than the final sample. The lessons learned from these stages led to improvements in the questionnaire, including the addition of four knowledge questions to better differentiate students’ understanding.

In the future, the presented program could be adapted to similar taxa facing challenges in different locations, adjusting the species of an area and their threats (Jensen & Schnack, 2006). Alterations could also be made to impact other ages (Ardoin et al., 2020), to identify perspectives and cultivate conservation behaviors (Stevenson et al., 2013). The amount of knowledge retention and the changes on attitude and behavior should be evaluated overlooking the immediate responses and short-term behavioral modification (Stern et al., 2013). A follow-up evaluation after 6-12 months could assess the retention of knowledge and determine whether the program promoted long-term changes in attitudes and behaviors toward the conservation of Greece’s threatened fauna.

The analysis of groups based on prior knowledge revealed interesting patterns, but additional variables such as connection to nature or environmental values could extract equally valuable information about individual differences in learning outcomes. The replication of this study in diverse educational and ecological contexts would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Adapting the program for different age groups, in informal teaching environments or areas with biodiversity challenges, would confirm the resilience of the present educational approach (Monroe et al., 2019).

Integration of demographic and psychosocial aspects that impact students’ perspectives and learning objectives could also be considered, in order to aim the intervention more effectively (Chawla & Derr, 2012). Cross-cultural comparisons could be particularly valuable, examining how similar programs could be implemented in other Mediterranean countries facing similar conservation challenges for endemic reptiles and mollusks.