Contrasts in the learning process among Forest Engineering students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15359/ru.36-1.43Keywords:
Learning techniques, forestry learning model, Forest EngineeringAbstract
[Objective] This study is focused on the analysis of learning styles and perceptions of university forestry engineering students at three different levels (beginning, intermediate and advanced). [Methodology] Tests were applied to determine students’ knowledge of topics related to the career, such as their perception of the career and topics or concepts that they considered to be complicated or problematic, all a using double-blind methodology with previously validated tests; a model of learning styles was subsequently developed. [Results] The results showed significant differences between beginning students and intermediate and advanced students. The group of beginners tends to be deficient in rote and meaningful learning, which improves as students advance in the program of study. In addition, it was determined that improvement in learning areas such as teamwork, soft skills and working under pressure increase students’ learning abilities. When the model was analyzed, it was determined that students’ expectations showed little relationship with the proposed model, regardless of the level of learning. Aspects such as prior knowledge and social influences significantly affect learning, which indirectly affects student satisfaction. [Conclusions] The proposed model is adaptable to forestry engineering students and helps them to better understand critical concepts and skills for the career; however, improvements must be made in the first stage of the program of study (for beginners) to reduce the need for memorization and promote learning through observational and discovery methods that would give students greater capabilities and motivation.
References
Abele, E., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., Metternich, J., ElMaraghy, H., Seliger, G., Sivard, G., ElMaraghy, W., Hummel, V., & Tisch, M. (2017). Learning factories for future oriented research and education in manufacturing. CIRP annals, 66(2), 803-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.005
Atabekova, A., Belousov, A., & Shoustikova, T. (2015). Web 3.0-based non-formal learning to meet the third millennium education requirements: University Students’ perceptions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.754
Barsness, K. A. (2020). Achieving expert performance through simulation-based education and application of mastery learning principles. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2020.150904
Barteit, S., Guzek, D., Jahn, A., Bärnighausen, T., Jorge, M. M., & Neuhann, F. (2020). Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Computers & education, 145, 103726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103726
Boarin, P., Martinez-Molina, A., & Juan-Ferruses, I. (2020). Understanding students’ perception of sustainability in architecture education: A comparison among universities in three different continents. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119237
Brew, A., & Saunders, C. (2020). Making sense of research-based learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 102935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102935
Bullard, S. H., & Straka, T. J. (2014). Bullish on forestry careers.
Camacho-Cornejo, L. D., Salas-Garita, C., Vargas-Fonseca, L., & Valverde-Otárola, J. C. (2017). Medición del conocimiento adquirido en tecnología de la madera por industriales forestales en Costa Rica. Revista Tecnología en Marcha, 30, 35-46. http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0379-39822017000300035&nrm=iso
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & education, 123, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.007
Dantas, L. A., & Cunha, A. (2020). An integrative debate on learning styles and the learning process. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100017
De Villiers, R. (2010). The incorporation of soft skills into accounting curricula: preparing accounting graduates for their unpredictable futures. Meditari Accountancy Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/10222529201000007
Finelli, C. J., Nguyen, K., DeMonbrun, M., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Husman, J., Henderson, C., Shekhar, P., & Waters, C. K. (2018). Reducing student resistance to active learning: Strategies for instructors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5).
Gogus, A., & Gunes, H. (2011). Learning styles and effective learning habits of university students: A case from Turkey. College Student Journal, 45(3), 586-601.
Grosemans, I., Coertjens, L., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Exploring learning and fit in the transition from higher education to the labour market: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 21, 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.03.001
Guzman, T., Pirog, M. A., & Jung, H. (2021). Cost of higher education: For-profit universities and online learning. The Social Science Journal, 58(4), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.03.010
Hooshyar, D., Pedaste, M., Saks, K., Leijen, Ä., Bardone, E., & Wang, M. (2020). Open learner models in supporting self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. Computers & education, 154, 103878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103878
Kahl, C. (2014). Students’ dream of a “perfect” learning environment in private higher education in Malaysia: An exploratory study on “education in private university in Malaysia”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 325-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1430
Koraneekij, P., & Khlaisang, J. (2015). Development of learning outcome based e-portfolio model emphasizing on cognitive skills in pedagogical blended e-learning environment for undergraduate students at faculty of education, Chulalongkorn University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 805-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.664
Kovacova, L., & Vackova, M. (2015). Implementation of e-learning into the process security education in universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 414-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.810
Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological science in the public interest, 15(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614525555
Leal Filho, W., Raath, S., Lazzarini, B., Vargas, V. R., de Souza, L., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O. L. G., Haddad, R., Klavins, M., & Orlovic, V. L. (2018). The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 286-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.017
Li, L., & Zhang, J. (2021). Successful Online Learning Experience: Perceptions of Chinese Undergraduate Students. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(1), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n1p74
López-Fernández, D., Sánchez, P. S., Fernández, J., Tinao, I., & Lapuerta, V. (2020). Challenge-based learning in aerospace engineering education: the ESA concurrent engineering challenge at the Technical University of Madrid. Acta Astronautica, 171, 369-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.03.027
López-Vargas, O., Ibáñez-Ibáñez, J., & Racines-Prada, O. (2017). Students’ metacognition and cognitive style and their effect on cognitive load and learning achievement. Journal of educational technology & society, 20(3), 145-157.
Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M.-P. (2011). Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive style approach. Computers & education, 56(4), 1003-1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.018
Margunayasa, I. G., Dantes, N., Marhaeni, A., & Suastra, I. W. (2019). The Effect of Guided Inquiry Learning and Cognitive Style on Science Learning Achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 737-750. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12147a
Mélendez, J. R., Zoghbe, Y. A., Malvacias, A. M., Almeida, G. A.,, & Layana, J. (2018). Theory of Constraints: A systematic review from the management context. Revista Espacios, 39(48).
Mingazova, N. (2014). Modification Of the active learning methods in environmental education in Russian universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.083
Mullen, J., Byun, C., Gadepally, V., Samsi, S., Reuther, A., & Kepner, J. (2017). Learning by doing, High Performance Computing education in the MOOC era. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 105, 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.01.015
Muncharaz, J. Z., de los Ríos Carmenado, I., & Rivera, M. (2015). Education Planning Evolution for Forest Engineering in Spain. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1710-1715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.224
Pinho, C., Franco, M., & Mendes, L. (2020). Exploring the conditions of success in e-libraries in the higher education context through the lens of the social learning theory. Information & Management, 57(4), 103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103208
Probst, L., Bardach, L., Kamusingize, D., Templer, N., Ogwali, H., Owamani, A., Mulumba, L., Onwonga, R., & Adugna, B. (2019). A transformative university learning experience contributes to sustainability attitudes, skills and agency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 648-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.395
Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students. System, 39(1), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.008
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital science and education, 2(3), 923-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
Riding, R. J., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some implications for training design. International Journal of training and Development, 1(3), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2419.00020
Ritter, B. A., Small, E. E., Mortimer, J. W., & Doll, J. L. (2018). Designing management curriculum for workplace readiness: Developing students’ soft skills. Journal of Management Education, 42(1), 80-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917703679
Ruba, J., Brizga, D., Svika, D., Miezīte, O., & Sisenis, L. (2019). Forest engineering students competence development in adult education. Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2019vol5.3758
Schmeck, R. R. (2013). Learning strategies and learning styles. Springer Science & Business Media.
Simsek, A., & Balaban, J. (2010). Learning strategies of successful and unsuccessful university students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/5960
Spinelli, R., Visser, R., & Han, H.S. (2019). A decade of forest engineering: achievements and future directions. Forests, 10(9), 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090724
Stewardson, D., & Spielmaker, D. (2019). Find your future in a living science career. Science Scope, 42(9), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss19_042_09_40
Šušnjar, M., Oršanić, M., Pentek, T., Poršinsky, T., & Šporčić, M. (2013). Recent challenges of forest engineering academic education. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering: Journal for Theory and Application of Forestry Engineering, 34(1), 167-172.
Taguas, E., Marín-Moreno, V., Bellegarde, B., Bergillos, C., & Campos, R. (2018). Collaborative Learning for ICTs in Agro-Forest Engineering Studies: a study case based on workshops carried out by undergraduate students. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts.
Thangrattana, M. K., Pathumcharoenwattana, W., & Ninlamot, W. (2014). A Non-formal Education Program to Enhance Drug Abuse Resilience Quotient of Youth At-risk of Drug Relapse: The Approaching of the Transformative Learning Theory and the Cognitive Behavioral Modification Concept. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 916-924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.343
Tinajero, C., Lemos, S. M., Araújo, M., Ferraces, M. J., & Páramo, M. F. (2012). Cognitive style and learning strategies as factors which affect academic achievement of Brazilian university students. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 25(1), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-79722012000100013
Valverde, J. C., Romero-Zúñiga, M., & Vargas-Fonseca, L. (2020). Tendencias actuales, retos y oportunidades de los procesos de aprendizaje universitario aplicados a las ciencias forestales. Revista científica(39), 262-277. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.16030
Vargas-Fonseca, L., Valverde, J. C., Camacho-Cornejo, D., Salas-Garita, C., & Berrocal-Jiménez, A. (2021). Análisis perceptual del proceso de transferencia de conocimiento en maderas a instituciones en Costa Rica. Colombia Forestal, 24(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.14483/2256201X.15347
Westwood, A. R., Hutchen, J., Kapoor, T., Klenk, K., Saturno, J., Wang, J., Falconer, M., & Nguyen, V. M. (2021). A systematic mapping protocol for understanding knowledge exchange in forest science. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 2(3), e12096. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12096
Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
Yurdakul Erol, S. (2022). Comparison of Forest Engineering Students’ Attitudes towards Their Education and Future Jobs: Case Results from Turkey. Sustainability, 14(1), 530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010530
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors guarantee the journal the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors can set separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, place it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. The authors have declared to hold all permissions to use the resources they provided in the paper (images, tables, among others) and assume full responsibility for damages to third parties.
4. The opinions expressed in the paper are the exclusive responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the editors or the Universidad Nacional.
Uniciencia Journal and all its productions are under Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Unported.
There is neither fee for access nor Article Processing Charge (APC)
