Analyzing Teaching Strategies and Learning Designs: A Case Study on Teton Grand

Introduction

With the emergence of a worldwide pandemic such as Covid 19, learning has become a challenge for many institutions. Instructors have to devise new teaching strategies and designs to ensure effectiveness in content delivery. The educational success of a person who is being taught depends on two key factors: the teacher who creates the educational environment and the student who receives the educational content (Snjezana, 2017). Designs used in learning processes in an institution are usually based on; the intended outcome of learning, and the principles used predict the methods of assessment to ascertain information mastery. Some teachers have attempted to merge the benefits of web-based learning and in-class meetings in more blended forms, such as a flipped classroom model (Bishop & Verleger, 2013). Ideally, using the two learning methods in the same environment has proved to be beneficial on a larger scale. Tests done by Bishop and Verleger (2013) estimated that blending web-based learning and in-class meetings often led to the production of highly qualified learners. They are innovative, and inventive in their various fields of specialization. A case study on Teton Grand was conducted to determine the impact of the teaching strategies and designs employed on the final score obtained by environmental studies students.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Results and Analysis

In a case study of Teton Grand, students came from different parts of the city; Tiger Lilly 32.1% (161), Owl Alley 28.1% (141), Birdville 15% (75), Flower Field 12.6% (63), Elk Avenue 5.4% (27), Sunny Meadow 4.2% (21) and Willowbrook 2.6% (13). This superseded that 52.1% (261) students were engaged in an e-learning environment, 22.6% (113) had on-ground learning, and 23.4% (117) were engaged using a blended platform (i.e., both e-learning and on-ground). Of all the students, 80.8% (405) were male, and 18.8% (94) were female. The majority of the male students, 51.4% (204) preferred e-learning, 23.9% (95) preferred on-ground learning, and 24.7% (98) preferred blended learning. The majority of the female students, 62% (57) preferred e-learning, 17.4% (16) preferred on-ground learning, and 20.7% (19) preferred blended learning. Most students, 63.1% (316), attended Saturday classes, whereas 36.9% (185) attended Monday. Of those attending Saturday classes, 52.4% had e-learning classes, 25.2% had on-ground classes, and 22.3% had blended classes. Of those that attended classes on Monday, 54.4% had e-learning classes, 19.2% had on-ground classes, and 26.4% had blended classes. The majority 90.2% (452) of the instructors had an experience range of two to less than five years, 6.6% (33) had less than two years, 2% (10) had more than ten years, and 1.2% (6) had a range of five years to less than ten years of experience.

Students with on-ground learning had higher (81.91 ± 0.99) mean scores, whereas e-learning and blended learning students had a mean of 79.54 ± 0.84 and 79.24 ± 1.06, respectively. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was done to determine if there were significant differences in the mean final score between students engaged using e-learning, on-ground, and blended learning platforms. The ANOVA test determined that there were no significant differences in the mean final scores for students who used e-learning, on-ground, and blended learning platforms. A study done by Courtney found no significant differences between the on-campus and online learning groups in students' knowledge gains over the semester (Courtney, 2017). Similarly, there was no significant outcome difference found between the type of teaching modality and the support that online learning was equally acceptable when a comparison between traditional and online learning (Meder, 2013).

Within Groups, 75391.318 488 154.490 Total 75927.927 490 Students who attended classes on Monday (80.95 ± 0.79) had a higher mean final score than students who attended classes on Saturday (79.46 ± 0.75). Female students (82.69 ± 1.17) had a higher final mean score than male students (79.39 ±.0.63). An ANOVA test was done to determine the significant difference between the mean final scores for students who; had classes on Monday and Saturday, were male and female, learning format, and their interactions. The results yielded by an ANOVA test showed that there were significant differences in the mean final scores between students who attended classes either on Monday or Saturday. There were significant differences in the mean final score between male and female students. There is a significant difference in the mean final score considering the interaction between the day of class and the gender of the students. There were no significant differences in the mean final scores considering the format of learning (e-learning, on-ground, and blended).

It was observed that the majority 64.3% generally agreed that the course was helpful to their understanding of animal health and welfare, whereas 24.8% stated otherwise. 57.7% of the students agreed that the course was helpful to their understanding of environmental health and welfare. Considering the rooms used for training, 82.7% agreed, whereas 14.8% disagreed that the rooms were conducive. 49.7% disagreed that the books used for training the course were conducive to learning, whereas 44.7% deemed the books conducive. The majority of the students, 66.1%, generally agreed that their instructors were effective in teaching the course material, whereas 31.4% disagreed that their instructors effectively taught the course material. 47.5% generally disagreed that their instructors wanted them to have a good experience in the course, whereas 46.1% agreed. 61.9% of the students generally agreed that the instructors were timely and attentive, whereas 35% disagreed with that notion. 55.7% of the students agreed that their instructors showed a mastery of the course materials, and 40.5% disagreed that the instructors showed a mastery of the course materials. The Majority, 71.3% of the students generally agreed that the instructors were committed to a strong, effective education program, whereas 26.8% deemed otherwise. The majority 75.1% of the students agreed that the immersion activities were conducive to learning, and 19.4% thought otherwise. 65.5% of the students agreed to be adequately trained to handle the different aspects of environmental preservation, whereas 32.6% disagreed with being adequately trained. 68.2% of the students disagreed with getting regular feedback on their performance in the course, whereas 27.8% agreed to have regular feedback. Notably, a higher population of students affirmed that they were no longer receiving feedback for their submitted tasks, and this facilitated unfair results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, teaching strategies and designs are important in devising ways of ensuring effective learning content delivery to students. It was observed that the majority of Teton Grand's students use e-learning platforms as compared to on-ground and blended learning. Given that there were no significant differences in the final exam scores between e-learning, on-ground learning, and blended learning, we can infer that teaching strategy and design do not significantly impact the scores obtained on the final exam. Other latent factors that may have impacted final exam scores were; the instructors' timeliness and attentiveness, instructors' course mastery, instructor effectiveness in teaching course materials, immersion activities, and the instructors' commitment levels. To improve the final exam scores for students, instructors should provide relevant books and coursework material, mentor their students such that they have a good learning experience, and give regular feedback on student performance. Perhaps, the availability of feedback for students allows them to engage in corrective measures in the possible areas where they made mistakes. The provision of revision materials also offers learners the best opportunities to perform individual and group-driven research, which can eventually promote their learning outcomes.

References

Bishop, J. L., and Verleger, M.A. (2013). "The flipped classroom: A survey of the research." ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.

Holmes, C. M., & Reid, C. (2017). “A Comparison Study of On-campus and Online Learning Outcomes for a Research Methods Course." The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 9(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.7729/92.1182

Meder, C. (2013). Counselor Education Delivery Modalities: Do They Affect Student Learning Outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. UMI Number: 3573598.

Snjezana Babic (2017). “E-learning environment compared to traditional classroom." Polytechnic of Rijeka/Business Department, Rijeka, Croatia.