The Potential of Blended Learning in Agricultural Education of Ireland

International Journal Of Agricultural Science, Research And Technology In Extension And Education Systems

مقاله 7، دوره 5، شماره 1، خرداد 2015، صفحه 53-64   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

نویسندگان

Donna Deegan^{* 1}؛ Padraig Wims²؛ Tony Pettit³

¹School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

²School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

³Teagasc Kildalton Agricultural College, Piltown, Kilkenny, Ireland

چکیده

The management of agricultural education faces on-going challenges to deliver current and effective materials in an approach that takes advantage of developments in education technology. In this article the use of blended learning was compared with the traditional approach for the instruction of theoretical materials in agricultural education. This study used a pre-test, post-test experimental design with agricultural college students. All students were taught using either a traditional or blended methodology. They were subsequently assessed to determine their level of knowledge. Two key findings from this study were highlighted: Firstly, regardless of their age profile all learners achieved significantly better exam results following blended teaching for theoretical material. Secondly, academically weaker students performed significantly better following the blended method of delivery. Key implications arising from this research indicate that the use of the blended method of delivery can increase students acquisition of knowledge for learners of all ages; blended learning can bring text heavy materials to life and makes them more interactive and less mundane; the learning experience and learning outcomes for academically weaker students are improved through the blended learning environment. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

Blended learning؛ ICTs؛ Interactive Learning Environments؛ technology adoption

مراجع

1)         Askov, E. N & Clark, C. J. (1991). Computers in Adult Literacy Instruction. Journal of Reading, 34(6): 434-448.

2)         Beastall, L. (2006). Enchanting a disenchanted child: revolutionizing the means of education using Information and Communication Technology and e-learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(1): 97-110.

3)         Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

4)         Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4): 231–244.

5)         Cancannon, F, Flynn, A & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning? . British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3): 501–512.

6)         Caley, L & Hendry, E. (2008). Corporate Learning: Rhetoric and Reality. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(3): 241-247.

7)         Derouin, R. E, Fritzsche, B. A & Salas, E. (2005). E-learning in organizations. Journal of Management, 37(6): 920-940.

8)         Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S.  (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream In C J Bonk & C R Graham (Eds), The handbook of blended learning (pp 195-208). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

9)         Elwood, C. (2005). A means to a blend; Training survey 2005 [Electronic Version], November, 1-26. Retrieved 10th Mach 2015 , from http://www.balancelearning.co.uk/survey2005/report.html

10)     Graham , C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions In C Bonk & C Graham (Eds) The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp 3–21), San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

11)     Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4): 480–488.

12)     Hudson, B. (2011). Didactical design for technology enhanced learning In B Hudson & MA Meyer (Eds) Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe (pp 223–238). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

13)     Jones, N & Robinson, G. (1998). Do Organizations Manage Continuing Professional Development? Journal of Management Development, 14(1): 197-207.

14)     Kalantzis, M & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age . E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(1), 200–222.

15)     Khan , B. H. (1997). Web-based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs: N J: Educational Technology Publications.

16)     Klein, H. J, Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to Learn and Course Outcomes: The Impact of Delivery Mode, Learning Goal Orientation, and Perceived Barriers and Enablers. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 59(3): 665-702.

17)     Kulik, C. L. C, Kulik, J. A & Shwalb, B. J. (1986). The Effectiveness of Computer-based Adult Education: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1): 235-252.

18)     Lievens , F., Reeve, C. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (2007). An Examination of Psychometric Bias Due to Retesting on Cognitive Ability Tests in Selection Settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1672-1682.

19)     López-pérez, M., Pérez-lópez, M .C., & Rodríguez-ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56(3): 818–826.

20)     Loveless, A. (2011). Technology, pedagogy and education: reflections on the accomplishment of what teachers know, do and believe in a digital age . Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3): 301-316.

21)     Mayes, T & De Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory In H Beetham & R Sharp (Eds), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp13-25). Abingdon: Routledge.

22)     Mac donald, J. (2006). Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: A Good Practice Guide. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited.

23)     Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers' professional development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison. Computers & Education, 60(1): 40–51.

24)     Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research? PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4(1): 51–60.

25)     Myer, J. M & Halpin, R. (2002). Teacher’s Attitude and Use of Multimedia Technology in the Classroom: Constructivist Based Professional Development Training for School Districts. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4): 133-140.

26)     Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27)     Porter, W. W., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.A., & Welch, H.R., (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75(6): 185-195.

28)     Robinson, K. (2010, October 14). Changing Education Paradigms. Video file retrieved from URL http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.

29)     Rosenberg, M. J. (2006). Beyond e-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning, and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

30)     Schifter, C & Stewart, C. (2010). Technologies and the classroom come to age after century of growth P10, Teaching and learning with technology, C. Stewart, C. Schifter and M. Selverian, published by Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2010.

31)     Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online education community of practice, In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129–158) New York: Cambridge University Press.

32)     Selwyn, N. (2008). From state-of-the-art to state-of-the-actual? Introduction to a special issue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17: 83–88.

33)     Singh, H. (2003). Building Effective Blended Learning Programs. Issues of Educational Technology, 43 (6): 51-54.

34)     Singh, H. (2006). Blending learning and work; Real-time work flow learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning (pp. 474-490). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

35)     Swann, D. L., Branson Jr, F. & Talbert, A. B. (2003). Educator Beliefs Regarding Computer-Based Instruction. Journal of Extension, 41(1), Accessed 12 December 2014 http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/rb4.php

36)     Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority. (2013). Teagasc Annual Report 2013 :http://www.teagasc.ie/publications /2014/3326/Teagasc_Annual_Report_2013.pdf

37)     Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, R. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering management (EM-29), 28–45

38)     Venkatesh, V. & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why do Men Ever Stop Asking for Direction? Gender Social Influence and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. Management Information System Quarterly journal. 24(1): 115-139.

39)     Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know? In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 1–19) London: Paul Chapman Publishing

40)     Williamson, R. D. & Smoak, E. P. (2005). Embracing Edutainment with Interactive e-Learning Tools, Journal of Extension, 43(5), Accessed 12 December 2014 http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/ iw2.php

41)     Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55 (1): 155–166.