Developing Students’ Competences Through Alternative Learning Methods: Results of Experimental Online Classes Addressing AUA Students ^†

Abstract

This study aimed to assess how alternative teaching methods support the development of key competences among agronomy students. Online sessions applying Traditional Lecturing, Experiential, and Investigative Learning were conducted. Results show that Experiential Learning had the most positive impact on cognitive, social, and meta-cognitive skills. Students preferred interactive approaches. Future teaching should further integrate participatory methods into agronomic curricula.

1. Introduction

The role of Higher Education (HE) graduates is, amongst others, to act as future leaders and agents of change [1]. Regarding the graduates of the Agricultural University of Athens (AUA), one of their career paths is that of Agronomist–Rural Advisor (ARA), providing advice to farmers, especially on the introduction of innovations. Nowadays, this role is orientated towards supporting farmers’ and their networks’ decision making (innovation broker) concerning changes (transition) affecting, in one way or another, community wellbeing and planet sustainability [2]. As change agents, they need to develop appropriate competences including scientific knowledge, skills, and values [3]. In parallel, they should act with ethos and professional ethics stemming from a mindset that would frame their responsibilities and interventions, especially with regard to planet sustainability. The latter is not only rather ‘common place’ in the rhetoric of our times but it has been lately enforced by the European Union strategy “A European Green Deal” and specifically for agriculture by the “Farm to Fork Strategy” [4].

Within such a framework, this piece of work examines the contribution of modern educational methods as compared to the dominant, in tertiary agronomic education, lecturing to the acquisition and/or enhancement of cognitive, metacognitive, social, and communication competences, professional ethics, and active learner participation in the educational process.

2. Methods

In March 2021 an invitation was sent to AUA students enrolled in two courses, namely, “Agricultural Education” and “Management and protection of the rural environment.” Students were invited to participate in extra online (at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic) 3 h classes that would use different learning methods, aiming to explore the acquisition of competencies necessary for their profile as ARA. A total of 69 AUA students voluntarily participated. The sample accounts for 37.7% of the 183 students enrolled in the two courses. Of those, 79 had enrolled in the “Agricultural Education” course: from the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (8 students), Crop Science (11 students), Animal Science and Aquaculture (38 students), and Biotechnology (22 students); and 104 students had enrolled in Management and protection of the rural environment all from the Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.

Students enrolled in “Agricultural Education” attended a 3 h extra class on “Teaching techniques and tools”. Students enrolled in “Management and protection of the rural environment” attended a 3 h extra class on “Organic Agriculture and Sustainability”. Students from each lesson were divided in three groups (A = 27 students, B = 21 students, and C = 21 students). Each group followed a different approach: A = Traditional Lecturing (TL) [5], B = Experiential Learning (EL) [6], based on Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (KELT) [7]; and C = Investigative case-based learning (IL) [8].

Students anonymously filled two structured questionnaires (pre- and post-lesson) using 5-point Likert scale closed answer grids on questions concerning, among others, their experience from the extra online lessons regarding the use and development of competences (cognitive, social, meta-cognitive) as well as values and professional ethos [9]. The first level of analysis targeted differences in the opinions of students before and after each lesson, for all three groups, in an attempt to capture the potential influence (positive or negative) of each learning intervention, using Wilcoxon’s non-parametric test for related groups. The second level of analysis compared the pre–post differences among the three groups, in an effort to monitor which learning approach had the larger influence on the participants, using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, based on the comparison of mean ranks [10,11].

3. Results and Discussion

In the first place, a brief account of students’ characteristics is presented in

Table 1. Students’ Characteristics.

Gender	%
Female	63
Male	37
Year of study	%
1st	18
2nd	70
3rd	12
Year of birth	%
<1999	3.50
1999	3.50
2000	24.60
2001	54.40
2002	14

.

Regarding students’ attitudes towards the effectiveness in the acquisition of modern ARA competencies, the three methods were found to differ significantly in terms of cognitive (p < 0.01), social (p < 0.01), and meta-cognitive competencies (p < 0.01), while the acquisition of values and professional ethics is marginally non-significant (p = 0.054). With reference to the statistically significant differences, the highest pre–post positive influence result (mean rank) is attributed to experiential learning followed by the slightly lower influence of the investigative method. On the other hand, the relative pre–post differences of traditional learning fall far behind, justifying the statistically significant differences among the compared methods. Particularly for the social and meta-cognitive competencies, the two alternative methods have very high values as compared to traditional lecturing. In the case of cognitive competencies, the experiential method clearly excels both in the traditional lecturing and the investigative method. Finally, in the case of values and professional ethos, the investigative method shows the highest pre–post difference; however, the Kruskal–Wallis test results do not confirm statistically significant differentiation among the methods.

Furthermore, the active involvement of students is enhanced through the experiential and investigative method with the first one showing the largest (positive) pre–post influence (mean rank = 46.26). Traditional lecturing’s slight pre–post differences, and thus low influence, led to statistically significant differentiation among the tested methods (p < 0.001), as presented in

Table 2. Comparison of the development of students’ competences regarding different learning methods.

Did Today’s Teaching Affect the Acquisition of:	Group/Learning Method	N	Mean Rank	H	df	p
Cognitive competences	TL	27	27.31
	EL	21	46.29	12.084	2	0.002
	IL	21	33.60
	Total	69
Social competencies	TL	27	19.74
	EL	21	46.76	28.057	2	0.001
	IL	21	42.86
	Total	69
Meta-cognitive competencies	TL	27	24.50
	EL	21	43.12	13.992	2	0.000
	IL	21	40.38
	Total	69
Values and professional ethos	TL	27	28.61
	EL	21	36.31	5.838	2	0.054
	IL	21	41.90
	Total	69
Involvement in the learning process	TL	27	22.04
	EL	21	46.26	21.143	2	0.000
	IL	21	40.40
	Total	69

.

In a similar vein, as presented in

Table 3. Preferred learning method.

	Group/Learning Method	N	Mean Rank	H	df	p
Lecturers in AUA should adopt today’s learning method	TL	27	25.02
	EL	21	45.57	13.555	2	0.001
	IL	21	37.26
	Total	69

, students clearly indicate that the alternative methods are preferred as teaching methods to be implemented in AUA (p < 0.01) with the experiential learning being the most suggested method.

4. Conclusions

The findings indicate that active and participatory learning, through methods such as the experiential and the investigative ones, significantly enhances the development of students’ key competences and are preferred vis-à-vis traditional lecturing. Students’ positive attitude towards contemporary teaching methods highlights the necessity of integrating such methods into university education, as a means of strengthening both their learning engagement and their professional profile as agronomists–agents of change. Nevertheless, a more nuanced approach is recommended to account, for example, for post-pandemic in-person classes and courses, different students’ learning styles, other evaluation tools, etc. Furthermore, further exploration of the use of such teaching/learning methods involving, among others, a range of agronomic departments and students (i.e., a more varied sampling), including their application for a longer period of time, as well as of the long-term influence of such methods on students is highly recommended.