Effects of a video-mediated student-centered learning environment on students&rsquo; understanding of plant pathology principles

Rotacio  Gravoso,; Erik-Ray Matthew  S. Palomar,

Effects of a video-mediated student-centered learning environment on students’ understanding of plant pathology principles

Erik-Ray Matthew S. Palomar | Rotacio Gravoso

Abstract:

Palomar, E. R. M. S. and R. S. Gravoso. 2006. Effects of video-mediated student-centered learning environment on students’ understanding of plant pathology principles. Ann. Trop. Res. 28(2):32-52. Working with the faculty of Plant Protection, a video-mediated learner-centered learning environment was designed, implemented, and evaluated in a PPrt 21 (Principles of Plant Protection) class. Students’ learning outcomes, measured in terms of conceptual understanding and knowledge transfer, were compared with students in the control group who studied the same topics in a traditional learning environment. Post-test results showed highly significant differences between the experimental and the control groups in terms of conceptual understanding and knowledge transfer, with the experimental group scoring higher than the control group. Based on feedback, the learning environment did not only enrich students’ understanding of plant diseases. It also promoted development of skills in teamwork, communicating, researching, and problem-solving. The students and the teacher suggested the use of this type of learning in other subjects.

References:

ALEXANDER, P. and P.K. MURPHY. 1999. Nurturing the seeds of transfer: A domain-specific perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 31: 561-576.
BIGGS, J. 1996. Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21:93-108.
BOLLETIN, W.R. 1998. Can information technology improve education?: Measuring voices, attitudes and perceptions. OnTheInternet: 33(1). Retrieved May 20, 2005 from the Internet. http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/review/reviewArticles/33150.html
BRANSFORD, J.D., A.L. BROWN, and R.R. COCKING 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C
BROWN, J.S. L. COLLINS, and P. DUGUID. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18: 32-42.
BRUER, J.T. 1994. Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. MIT Press, Cambridge.
CHI, M.T.H. 2000. Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In: Advances in instructional psychology. Volume 5: Educational design and cognitive science (R. Glaser, Ed.). Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 161-238.
DISESSA, A.A. 1993. Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10:239-249.
DUFFY, T.M. and D.J. CUNNINGHAM. 2001. Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In: Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (D.H. Jonassen, Ed.). Retrieved from the Internet on February 20, 2003. http://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications/edtech#index.
GIBSON, J.J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In: Perceiving, acting, and knowing (R. Shaw and Bransford, Eds.). Erlbaum, Hilsdale, New Jersey.
GLASER, (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In: Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (D.F. Halpen, Ed.). pp. 63-73. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
GRAVOSO, R.S., A.E. PASA, and T. MORI. 2002. Influence of students’ prior learning experiences, learning conceptions and approaches on their learning outcomes. In: Research and development in higher education. Volume 25 - Quality conversations (A. Goody, J. Herrington, and M. Northcote, Eds.) pp. 282-289. ACT: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
HAMMER, D.H. (1996). Misconceptions on p-prime: How many alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5: 97-127.
JONASSEN, D.H. K.L. PECK, and, B.G. WILSON. 1999. Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
MANDL, H. H. GRUBER, and A. RENKL. H., H. GRUBER, and A. Renkl. 1994. Knowledge application in complex systems. In: Technology-based learning environments: Psychological and educational foundations (S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, and A. Mandl, eds.). Springer-Verly, Berlin, pp. 40-47.
MARTON, F., and. S. BOOTH. 1996. The learner’s experience of learning. In: Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (D. Olson & N. Torrance, Eds.). Praeger, New York. 176-205 pp.
PROSSER, M. and K. TRIGWELL. 1999. Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. SRHE Open University Press, Burckingham.
SIMON, H.A. 1989. Problem solving and evaluation. In: Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (D.T. Tuma and R. Reif, Eds.), pp. 81-96. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
SMITH, J.P., A.A. DISESSA, and A.A. ROCHELLE. 1993. Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 32: 115-163.
UENO, N. 1993. Reconsidering p-prime theory from the viewpoint of situated cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 10: 239-249.