Effect of Virtual Teaching Method and Gender on Vocational Student’s Achievement in Agricultural Science

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 جامعة البلقا التطبيقية، الأردن

2 کلية شوباک الجامعية

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of virtual teaching method and gender on vocational students' achievement in three agricultural lab courses: plant propagation, ornamental plants, and fruit trees, offered at plant production department, Al-Salt College, Al-Balqa Applied University. The participants of this study were 47 male and female vocational students studying at Al-Salt College. Student’s achievement was measured by achievement exam. The data were collected to measure students' achievement, descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to answer the research questions, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of virtual method and gender on achievement, while the analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to test the null hypotheses formulated at 0.05 probability level. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences at the level of Significance α = 0.05 between the means of students attributed to the virtual teaching method compared with the traditional one. The results also showed that there were no statistically significant differences at the level of Significance α = 0.05 between the means of the students attributed to the gender.  Based on these findings, recommendations were proffered that efforts should be intensified to integrate virtual method into teaching vocational students courses. More experimental research studies must be conducted in order to compare the use of a virtual teaching method in different agricultural learning situations.

Keywords

References

  1.  

    1. Adams, W., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S., Perkins, K., Dubson, M. & Wieman, C. (2008). A study of educational simulations part II – Interface design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12.
    2. Allan, H., Yuen, M. & Will W. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance.  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
    3. Algan, S. (1999).The influence of the computer based physics teaching on the success of the student and modern mathematics and science programs applied in Turkey in the years between (1962) and (1985). Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Science, Ankara, Turkey.
    4. Ameh, I-Ei., Daniel, B., & Akus, Y. (2007). Research and methods in the social sciences. Ankpa: Rowis press.
    5. Andoloro, G., Bellamonte, L., Sperandeo-Mineo, R. (1997). A computer-based learning environment in the field of Newtonian mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 661–680.
    6. Bagcı, N., Simsek, S. (1999). The influence of different teaching methods in teaching physics subjects on student’s success. The Journal of Gazi Education Faculty. 19(3), 79–88.
    7. Cengiz, T.(2010). The Effect of the Virtual Laboratory on Students’ Achievement and Attitude in Chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2 (1), 37–53.www.iojes.net
    8. Bekar, S. (1996). The influence of lab based science teaching on student’s success. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Science, Ankara, Turkey.
    9. Bryant, R., Edmunt, A. (1987). They like lab-centered science. The Science Teacher, 54(8), 42–45.
    10. Cramer, P. & De Meyer, G. (1997). The Philosophy of the Virtual Laboratory. www.vlabs.net/philos/vlart_g.html.

     

     

    1. Daluba, N. (2013). Effect of demonstration method of teaching on Students’ achievement in  agricultural science. World Journal of Education, 3(6), 2013.                                                       
    2. Douglas, J. (1990). Visualization of electron clouds in atoms and molecules. Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 42–44.
    3. Greenbowe, T. (1994). An interactive multimedia software program for exploring electrochemical cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 555–557.
    4. Josephsen & Kristensen (2006). Simulation of laboratory assignments to support students' learning of introductory inorganic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 266–279.                                                                                                                                              
    5. Kennepohl, D. (2001). Using computer simulations to supplement teaching laboratories in chemistry for distance delivery. Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 58-65.
    6. Kerr, M., Rynearson, K. & Kerr, M. (2004). Innovative educational practice: using virtual labs in the secondary classroom. The Journal of Educators Online, 1(1), 1–9.
    7. Lewis, N. (1993). The caltech chemistry animation project. Journal of Chemical Education. 70, 739–740.
    8. Lord, R. (1997). A Comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education.  21(3), 197–216.
    9. Lord, R. (1999). A Comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. Journal of Environmental Education. 30(3), 22–28.
    10. Mintz, R. (1993). Computerized simulation as an inquiry tool. School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 76–80.
    11. Novell, A., & Hedges, L. (2000).Trends in gender differences in academic achievement from (1960) to (1994): An analysis of differences in mean, variance, and extreme score. Sex Roles, 39 (1/2): 21–42.

     

     

     

    1. Redish, F., Jeffery S. & Steinberg R. (1997). On the effectiveness of active engagement microcomputer based laboratories. Department of Physics, University of Maryland College Park, MD20742.
    2. Rodrigues, S. (1997). Fitness for Purpose: A Glimpse at when, why and how to use information technology in science lessons. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43 (2), 38–39.
    3. Russell, J., Kozma, R., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N. & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74,330–334.
    4. Sentongo, J., Kyakulaga, R. and Kibirige, I. (2013). The effect of using computer simulations in teaching chemical bonding: Experiences with ugandan learners, International  Journal of Educational Science, 5(4): 433–441.
    5. Svec, M., Anderson, H., (1995). Effect of microcomputer-based laboratory on students graphing interpretation skills and conceptual understanding of motion. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(8), 2338–A.
    6. Virpir, S., Kirsti, L., & Sari, L. (2004). Study strategy used in learning from text: Does gender make any difference? www.springerlin.comm/content/kov.

    Yukselturk , E., & Bulut, S.(2009). Gender Differences In                     Self –Regulated Online Learning Environment. Educational Technology & Society ,12(3),12

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics