Indexing

Making Horticultural Teaching Engaging: Some experiments in interactive Approaches for Modern Education

Author:

Roshni Agnihotri

Journal Name: Biological Forum – An International Journal, 14(2a): 633-640, 2022

Address:

Assistant Professor, Horticulture (Floriculture),

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar, India.

PDF Download PDF

Abstract

Horticulture education requires innovative pedagogical approaches to engage students effectively and prepare them for contemporary challenges in the field. This study explores various creative and interactive teaching methodologies implemented at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar, to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes in horticultural education. The research examines hands-on learning experiences, field-based activities, gamification strategies, and project-based learning approaches through three case studies: model landscaping projects, student-centric herbal garden extension programs, and entrepreneurial floriculture business development. Results demonstrate that active learning methodologies significantly improve student participation, skill development, and knowledge retention compared to traditional lecture-based approaches. The findings provide evidence-based recommendations for horticulture instructors seeking to implement learner-centered teaching strategies aligned with the National Education Policy 2020.

Keywords

Horticulture education, innovative teaching, experiential learning, student engagement, pedagogical approaches, NEP 2020

Introduction

Agricultural
education in India is undergoing transformative changes with the implementation
of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasizes skill
development, experiential learning, and student-centric approaches (Ministry of
Education, 2020). Traditional teaching methods in horticulture education have
predominantly relied on lecture-based instruction, which often fails to
maintain student interest and engagement (Kumar and Singh 2019). Research
indicates that passive learning environments result in reduced knowledge
retention and limited practical skill development among agricultural students.
Contemporary educational research emphasizes the importance of active learning
strategies in science education (Freeman et al., 2014). Studies have demonstrated
that hands-on experiences significantly enhance student understanding of
complex horticultural concepts (Johnson and Johnson 2018). Experiential
learning theory, as proposed by Kolb (1984), suggests that learning is most
effective when students actively engage with material through concrete
experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation. This framework is particularly relevant to horticulture
education, where practical skills are essential for professional success
(Martin et al., 2020).

The
integration of innovative teaching methodologies in horticultural education
addresses several critical challenges. First, it enhances student motivation
and engagement by making learning more interactive and enjoyable (Deci and Ryan
2000). Second, it develops practical competencies essential for career
readiness in the horticulture industry (Roberts et al., 2018). Third, it fosters critical thinking and
problem-solving abilities necessary for addressing contemporary agricultural
challenges (Wals and Jickling 2002). Finally, it aligns educational practices
with industry expectations and societal needs (Litzenberg and Schneider 1987).

Previous
research has explored various active learning strategies in agricultural
education. Project-based learning has been shown to improve student engagement
and knowledge application in horticultural contexts (Doerfert, 2011). Field
experiences provide students with authentic learning opportunities and enhance
their understanding of real-world practices (Knobloch, 2003). Gamification
strategies have emerged as effective tools for increasing motivation and
participation in educational settings (Dicheva et al., 2015). However,
limited research has examined the systematic implementation of multiple
innovative methodologies within a single horticultural education program.











This
study addresses this gap by documenting and analyzing the implementation of
diverse innovative teaching approaches at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central
Agricultural University. The research aims to: (1) describe innovative teaching
methodologies employed in undergraduate horticulture education, (2) evaluate
their effectiveness in enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes, and
(3) provide practical recommendations for instructors seeking to implement
similar approaches. The findings contribute to the growing body of literature
on effective pedagogical practices in horticultural education and offer
insights for curriculum development aligned with NEP 2020 objectives.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that innovative, student-centered teaching methodologies significantly enhance engagement, learning outcomes, and skill development in horticultural education. The implementation of hands-on learning, field experiences, gamification, project-based learning, and student-led extension activities created rich learning environments that fostered both theoretical understanding and practical competencies. The three case studies illustrate practical approaches for implementing active learning strategies within horticulture curricula. Model landscaping projects develop design and technical skills while promoting creativity and environmental awareness. Student-centric herbal garden extension programs build leadership and communication abilities while serving community needs. Entrepreneurial floriculture activities cultivate business acumen and innovative thinking essential for career success.

Key recommendations for horticulture instructors include: (1) integrate multiple active learning methodologies to address diverse learning styles, (2) provide adequate time and resources for meaningful project implementation, (3) establish industry partnerships to enhance authentic learning experiences, (4) develop assessment methods that evaluate both process and product in project-based learning, and (5) create supportive environments that encourage student risk-taking and creative problem-solving.

Future Scope

Future research should examine long-term impacts of innovative teaching methodologies on graduate career success and professional development. Comparative studies evaluating different active learning approaches in various horticultural disciplines would inform evidence-based curriculum design. Investigation of faculty development programs supporting pedagogical innovation would enhance implementation sustainability. As horticulture education evolves to meet contemporary challenges, continued commitment to innovative, engaging teaching approaches will ensure that graduates possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for professional excellence and positive societal impact.

References

Agarwal, P. (2021). Shaping the future: NEP 2020 and transformation of higher education in India. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, 35(3), 201-216.

Aithal, P. S. and Aithal, S. (2020). Analysis of the Indian National Education Policy 2020 towards achieving its objectives. International Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences, 5(2), 19-41.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School Background Note, 396-239.

Angelo, T. A. and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E. and Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K. and Yee, J. A. (2000). How Service Learning Affects Students. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283-303.

Behrendt, M. and Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 235-245.

Bhat, S., Raju, R., Bikramjit, A. and D'Souza, R. (2021). Leveraging digital technology in Indian education system during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(3), 352-367.

Birch, H. J. S., Neville, P., Pattie, I. and Burnett, G. (2008). Challenges of project-based learning in a skills-based course. Journal of Learning Design, 2(2), 23-34.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. and Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.

Bonwell, C. C. and Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Borich, T. O. (2007). Effective Teaching Methods: Research-Based Practice (6th ed.). Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Brownell, S. E. and Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and tensions with professional identity? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-346.

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G. and Crick, A. (2009). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.

Clark, R. C. and Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (4th ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9-15.

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G. and Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75-88.

Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.). (2011). National Research Agenda: American Association for Agricultural Education's Research Priority Areas for 2011-2015. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C. and Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392.

Dugan, J. P., Komives, S. R. and Segar, T. C. (2008). College student capacity for socially responsible leadership: Understanding norms and influences of race, gender, and sexual orientation. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 475-500.

Eyler, J. and Giles, D. E. (1999). Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M. and Gray, C. J. (2001). At a Glance: What We Know about the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, 1993-2000 (3rd ed.). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Falk, J. H. and Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701-720.

Felder, R. M. and Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.

Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Neil D. Fleming, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Franz, N. K. (2007). Adult education theories: Informing cooperative extension's transformation. Journal of Extension, 45(1), 1FEA1.

Franz, N. and Townsend, C. (2008). Youth involvement in community-led development. New Directions for Youth Development, 2008(117), 109-126.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. and Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Girvan, C. (2018). What is a virtual world? Definition and classification. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1087-1100.

Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025-3034.

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N. and Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192.

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Honig, B. and Karlsson, T. (2004). Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of Management, 30(1), 29-48.

Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (2018). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In S.M. Brito (Ed.), Active Learning—Beyond the Future (pp. 59-71). IntechOpen, London.

Jones, C. and English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 46(8/9), 416-423.

Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. Pfeiffer, San Francisco.

Kember, D. and Leung, D. Y. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students' perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15-29.

Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education + Training, 46(8/9), 510-519.

Knobloch, N. A. (2003). Is experiential learning authentic? Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(4), 22-34.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Krajcik, J. S. and Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 317-334). Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kumar, P. and Singh, R. (2019). Innovations in agricultural education: Challenges and opportunities. Indian Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(2), 145-158.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Leeuwis, C. and Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: Creating space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 21-36.

Litzenberg, K. K. and Schneider, V. E. (1987). Competencies and qualities of agricultural economics graduates sought by agribusiness employers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(5), 1031-1036.

Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H. and Goodwin, G. K. (2004). Interior plants may improve worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 14(2), 97-100.

Loyens, S. M., Magda, J. and Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.

Maller, C., Townsend, M., Brown, P. and St Leger, L. (2009). The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context: A review of relevant literature. Deakin University and Parks Victoria, Melbourne.

Martin, A. G., Peel, D. S., Roberts, T. G., Dooley, K. E., Edgar, L. D. and Shoulders, C. W. (2020). Experiential learning: What do we know? A systematic review of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(2), 214-239.

Masson, R., Lamm, K. W., McKim, B. R. and Rutherford, T. A. (2016). Identification of competencies needed by entry-level employees in the horticulture industry. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 154-169.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York.

Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L. and Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.

Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167.

Mills, J. E. and Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2-16.

Ministry of Education. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Government of India, New Delhi.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N. and Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Nadelson, L. S. and Jordan, J. R. (2012). Student attitudes toward and recall of outside day: An environmental science field trip. Journal of Educational Research, 105(3), 220-231.

Neck, H. M. and Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Oladele, O. I. (2011). Community-based extension services: A survey of farmers in Ikwuano Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 3(10), 180-185.

Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J.S. Lockard (Ed.), The Evolution of Human Social Behaviour (pp. 49-66). Elsevier, New York.

Parr, B., Edwards, M. C. and Leising, J. G. (2007). Does a curriculum integration intervention improve the mathematics proficiency of agricultural education students? Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 26-37.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. Columbia University Press, New York.

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Radhakrishna, R. B. (2001). Professional development needs of state extension specialists. Journal of Extension, 39(5), 5RIB4.

Roberts, William, M., and Longhurst, S. (2014) Innovative Pedagogies for The Digital Age: Extending Higher Education Beyond the Walls of The University. In: Teaching Forward: The future of Social Sciences: Higher Education Academy Social Sciences Conference. University of Gloucestershire, https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/5040/

Rogers, P. J., Fraser, D. (2003). Appreciating appreciative inquiry. Special Issue: Using Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation, 100, 75-83.

Roehrig, G. H., Michlin, M., Schmitt, L., MacNabb, C. and Dubinsky, J. M. (2012). Teaching Neuroscience to Science Teachers: Facilitating the Translation of Inquiry-Based Teaching Instruction to the Classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 413-424.

Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: Organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self regulation in behaviour and development. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 701-728.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through cooperative Extension. Delmar Publications.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.

Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Facts and the self from a constructivist point of view. Poetics, 18(4–5), 435-448.

Wals, A. E. J. and  Jickling, B.  (2002).  “Sustainability” in higher education: from doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Higher Education Policy, 15(2), 121-131.

  Wingenbach, G. J., & Kahler, A. A. (1997). Self-Perceived Youth Leadership and Life Skills Of Iowa FFA Members. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(3), 18–27. 

How to cite this article

Roshni Agnihotri (2022). Making Horticultural Teaching Engaging: Some experiments in interactive Approaches for Modern Education. Biological Forum – An International Journal, 14(2a): 633-640.