The pros and cons of teaching soil fertility live versus online. Issue 1 (10th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mahler, Robert L.
• Is Part Of: Natural sciences education. Volume 50:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-05-10
• Subjects: Agricultural education -- Periodicals; Life sciences -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Natural resources -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; 507.1
• DOI: 10.1002/nse2.20053
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2168-8281

Abstract

Abstract: The COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020 has changed the way higher education delivers materials to students. The purpose of this study is to compare the pros and cons of teaching Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition (Soils 446), a class with a history of being taught live and online, from both the live and online perspectives. For our comparison, the following data was gathered: (a) history of when and how the class was offered, (b) content of Soils 446, (c) assessment of student achievement, (d) student evaluations of the course conducted by the University of Idaho, and (e) a post‐class survey of online students. Reasons for live classroom teaching being superior include: (a) classroom interaction with the instructor and other students, (b) allowing students to ask questions of the instructor during the lecture, right after class or on a face‐to‐face basis during designated office hours, and (c) the availability of local library resources and other staff to help with questions and projects. Reasons for online teaching being superior include: (a) distance students can take this class, (b) the online course may offer better time management for distance students, and (c) email, bblearn, ZOOM, and SKYPE are tools that allow frequent contact between the student and instructor. Motivated students were successful in both approaches. For less or unmotivated students both delivery methods are equally mediocre. Core Ideas: This study compared the pros and cons of teaching Soils 446 live in the classroom vs. using an online version. Student evaluations for both delivery methods were very good and above the university average. Online students expanded enrollment by 33%. The use of SKYPE, ZOOM, and email allow frequent contact between the student and instructor partially offsetting the advantage of live teaching. For the motivated student, both the live class and the online version can provide an equally good experience.