Comparison of Student Learning Attitudes, Knowledge, and Outcomes Towards Honey Bees in Online or In-Person Instructional Environments

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v69i1.260

Keywords:

beekeeping, online learning, constant comparative method, intent, learning outcomes

Abstract

Honey bee pollination of specialty crops is essential to agriculture and yet there are almost no university instructional programs to train the next generation of beekeepers. One reason for this lack of university investment in apiculture instruction is that there may not be enough students located at universities interested in the pursuit of beekeeping education. Teaching beekeeping as an online course can increase the number of students; however, two important questions emerge from the varying methods of teaching beekeeping: (a) Are online and in-person courses similar at teaching beekeeping principles, and (b) do the varying learning design methods change student perceptions in favor of honey bees and beekeeping? We investigated these questions with the use of an online survey for students in both the 100% online Beekeeping course and the blended Practical Beekeeping course at the University of Florida during the summer semesters of 2021 and 2022. The same survey, which was optional, anonymous, and not part of the students’ grade, was completed by students in both courses. The survey included a set of ten questions, evaluated on a Likert-type scale using a static group comparison design and a set of eight multiple choice questions to test potential differences in knowledge gained. Our findings suggest the relevance and value of both in-person and online beekeeping educational courses for improving knowledge and changing attitudes toward honey bees and the recruitment of future contributors to the beekeeping industry. Herein, we suggest areas of improvement, particularly for online courses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abrams, K. M., Zimbres, T., & Carr, C. (2015). Communicating sensitive scientific issues: The interplay between values, attitudes, and euphemisms in communicating livestock slaughter. Science Communication, 37(4), 485-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015588599

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Thompson-Wadsworth.

Aurell, D., Bruckner, S., Wilson, M., Steinhauer, N., & Williams, G. R. (2024). A national survey of managed honey bee colony losses in the USA: Results from the Bee Informed Partnership for 2020–21 and 2021–22. Journal of Apicultural Research, 63(1), 1-14.

Brockman, R. M., Taylor, J. M., Segars, L. W., Selke, V., & Taylor, T. A. (2020). Student perceptions of online and in-person microbiology laboratory experiences in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education Online, 25(1), Article 1710324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1710324

Calderone, N. W. (2012). Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PloS one, 7(5), e37235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037235

Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike, W. H. Angoff & E. F. Lindquist (Eds.), Educational measurement (2nd ed). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Macmillan.

Hoffman, H. J., & Elmi, A. F. (2020). Comparing student performance in a graduate-level introductory biostatistics course using an online versus a traditional in-person learning environment. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1841592

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lochmiller, C.R., (2021). Conducting Thematic Analysis with Qualitative Data. The Qualitative Report, Volume 26(6), 2029-2044. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008

McKivigan, J., Guison, N., & Qureshi, R. (2021). Teaching human anatomy: A comparison of in-person and online learning programs. European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(6), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejmed.2021.3.6.1011

Price - Banks, D., & Vergez, S. M. (2022). Online and in-person learning preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic among students attending the City University of New York. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), Article e00012-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00012-22

Race, A. I., De Jesus, M., Beltran, R. S., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2021). A comparative study between outcomes of an in‐person versus online introductory field course. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3625-3635. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7209

Rockwell, S. K., & Kohn, H. (1989). Post-then-pre evaluation: Measuring behavior change more accurately. Journal of Extension, 27(2), Article 2FEA5. https://archives.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.php

Sowcik, M., Benge, M., & Niewoehner-Green, J. (2018). A practical solution to developing county extension director’s leadership skills: Exploring the design, delivery and evaluation of an online leadership development program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(3), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.03139

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). (2024, March 15). Honey. USDA. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/hd76s004z/hm50wd54j/fq979h127/hony0324.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). (2022). USDA. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/hd76s004z/7m01cp956/df65wc389/hony0322.pdf

Additional Files

Published

09/12/2025

How to Cite

Prouty, C., Roberts, L., Benge, M., & Jack, C. (2025). Comparison of Student Learning Attitudes, Knowledge, and Outcomes Towards Honey Bees in Online or In-Person Instructional Environments. NACTA Journal, 69(1). https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v69i1.260

Issue

Section

Manuscripts