Development and Assessment of e-Applications and e-Principles Soil Science Lessons

1. Ave. Rating Principle lessons contributed to my learning... 2.29 Principle lesson material helped answer questions within the scenario... 2.23 I like how the principle lessons supported the application scenario... 2.31 Navigation to the principle lessons and back to the scenario was easy... 2.37 The feedback given in the application scenario was helpful. 2.31 The layout of the application scenario was easy to follow. 1.90 The lesson navigation tips for the Application Scenarios were useful... 2.43 The images within the application scenario were useful in helping me learn. 2.15 Application Lesson 3: Ecology-Soils and Salts Principle Lesson 4 Soil Profile Development Links to appropriate principles lessons section Case-studies in: Agroecosystems Environment Ecology: Soils and Salts Three e-Application Lessons Linked by questions to Principles Lessons Lesson 4: Soil Profile Development Lesson 1: Rocks & Minerals Lesson 5.Soil Classification Lesson 2: Weathering Lesson 6: Global Soil Resources & Distribution Lesson 3: Soil forming factors Six e-Principles Lessons Development and Assessment of e-Applications and e-Principles Soil Science Lessons M. Mamo1,T. Kettler1, J. Ippolito2, R. Reuter3, D. McCallister1, P. Hain1 C. Geiss4, W. Zanner5, and D. Husmann6. 1Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, Univ. of Nebraska; 2Dep. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State Univ.; 3Dep. of Forest Resources, Oregon State Univ.; 4Dep. of Physics, Trinity College, Connecticut, 5Dep. of Soil, Water, and Climate, Univ. of Minnesota, 6Dep. of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, Univ. of Nebraska (mmamo3@unl.edu) Application Lesson 3: Ecology-Soils and Salts • At UNL, only 34% of the participants were in agriculture related majors while the rest comprised of environmental sciences related major, horticulture, golf management, or landscape architecture. At CSU, 44% of participants were Agriculture related majors with the rest in wildlife biology, natural resources, rangeland ecology, geology, civil engineering, and forestry. At OSU, majors were 40% Outdoor recreation, 40% Natural Resources, and 20% Liberal Arts. • The class standing at UNL was 27% each Freshman and Junior, 24% Sophomore, 20% Senior, and 3% post-graduate. At OSU class standing were 12% Sophomore, 36% Junior, 44% Senior, and 8% post-graduate. • At both UNL and CSU, the dominant learning styles as defined by the Kolb Learning Style (KLSI) of participants were converger (the ‘How’ learners), assimilator (the ‘What’ learners), and accomodator (the ‘What if’ learners) ABSTRACT Application lessons or case-study based teaching is expected to enhance student’s learning by providing opportunities to apply principles or concepts of soil science. Six sets of web-based principle lessons, along with three web-based applications lessons, were developed for use by undergraduate earth science courses. The web-based application lessons included case studies that integrated agroecosystems, natural systems, and environmental science. Lessons were introduced in freshman and sophomore level soil science courses at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Colorado State University, and Oregon State University, in the Fall of 2006. An online based pre-test was administered prior to introducing the lessons in the classroom. An online post-test was administered after lesson use by students. A survey was also completed by students within few days days of lesson use. Student test performance improved by 10 to 69%. Survey indicated that students at all three institutions thought the lessons were useful and helped their learning. Lessons were found to be useful to all students and with good implementation strategy, they would be valuable resources to learners in a variety of contexts. e-Application Lessons Template Lists all Lessons OBJECTIVE To evaluate applications-principles model to teach Soil Genesis and Development with context case studies in Agronomy, Environmental, and Ecology situations. Fig. 1- Scores of Pre-test and Posttest at UNL, CSU, and OSU, Fall 2006 APPROACH Table 2- Change in student correct responses from pre-test to posttest. • At UNL, the internal consistency as measured by the reliability score (KR-20) was 0.92 for the pre-test and 0.58 for the posttest. Generally, a KR-20 value of 0.70 or higher is considered to be a reliable measurement tool with good internal consistency (Sandall, 2005). • The average pre-test score at UNL, CSU and OSU was 20.9, 28.6, and 25.8 respectively. • Average posttest scores at UNL was 35.3, 31.4 at CSU, and 32.6 at OSU. • Posttest scores at UNL and OSU improved significantly compared to pre-test scores (Fig. 1). However, scores did not improve at CSU. The score distribution in Fig. 2 clearly shows the change in score distribution from pre-test to posttest at UNL. This was not generally evident at CSU. e-Application Lessons Introducing the situation with some background information Stating the problem Series of questions asked. HyperLinks made below each question to refer students to one or more of the appropriate principles lessons sections Learner highlights major concepts & principles Learner articulate response to questions Learner checks responses to questions provided by lesson developers Learner makes recommendation to the problem Fig. 2- Score distributions of Pre-test and Posttest at UNL, Fall 2006 • The average change in percent correct response from posttest score was 23% but only 3% at CSU. Differences may be due to implementation strategy (Tables 1 & 2). At UNL, students completed lessons in class while at CSU lessons were assigned as homework. Thus, amount of lessons completed by students at CSU could have affected the posttest performance. • Participant score performance at CSU was not different between control and experimental groups for both the pre-test and posttest (data not presented). • Student performance among learning styles (‘how students learn’) was not different for both pre-test and posttest (data not presented) • Participants rated the affect of the lessons on their ability at an average of 2.71. Participants also indicated that the layout and navigation to Principles lessons and back to applications lessons were good (1.90 to 2.37) (Table 3). ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION Table 1- Courses and implementation strategies of e-lessons at UNL, CSU, and OSU. Table 3- Selected survey responses of students at UNL completed after posttest. Scale: 1= strongly agree or excellent; 5= strongly disagree or poor. SUMMARY & FUTURE ACTIVITIES • The results showed that the framework of e-application-e-principles model has good promise. Gains in posttest score through both informal (Fall 2005, Spring 2006) and formal (Fall 2006) assessments have been statistically significant and positive. • The database will need additional e-applications lessons to meet all learning objectives of e-principles lessons and to allow lessons use in a variety of appropriate contexts (disciplines). • Additional creative strategies are needed to enhance student engagement in lessons, such as interactivity, and quizzes at the end of each e-application lesson. • This proof-of-concept of e-application-e-principles model will be used to build Soil Science e-lessons database if NSF funds are successfully obtained. † Experimental group completed online lessons while control group completed topic with lecture and traditional recitation. Same pre-test and posttest were administered to both groups.