AWARENESS TOWARDS BLENDED LEARNING AMONG THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES OF UTTARAKHAND

J. KOCHAR¹, S.K. KASHYAP²*
¹Department of Agricultural Communication, College of Agriculture, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India
²Professor and Dean, College of Agriculture, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India
* Corresponding Author : kashyapsk@gmail.com

Received : 02-08-2023     Accepted : 28-09-2023     Published : 30-09-2023
Volume : 15     Issue : 9       Pages : 12631 - 12634
Int J Agr Sci 15.9 (2023):12631-12634

Keywords : Blended learning, New Education Policy, Teaching learning, Online learning
Academic Editor : Dr Mahesh Chander, Sumalatha Nallabeema, Dr Mehul G. Thakkar
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Agricultural Communication, College of Agriculture, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India and Dean, College of Agriculture, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Every new development brings new opportunities; educationists and students have witnessed tremendous changes brought in by ICT. One such intervention in the field of ICT is blended learning recommended by NEP 2020 and bringing remarkable results wherever applied. Thus, the higher education institutes need such transformation to build the system. Blended Learning as a prosperous solution to flexible learning is very less applied in Indian institutes therefore, keeping all these in view a research study was undertaken with the objectives to find socio-personal, communication and psychological characteristics of students and to assess the students’ level of awareness towards blended learning. The study employed a descriptive research design to fulfil its objectives. The selection of the G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar was purposive with total of 140 respondents. The findings of the study revealed that majority of undergraduate students were in the age group of 22-23 years (62.14%) with higher proportion of female (61.43%) students, had English (88.57%) as their medium of instruction prior to joining the university and belonged to urban (69.29%) areas. Respondents had preferred visual (37.14%) as learning style preference, extroverted, preferring random-intuitive way of handling things and further process information by synthesizing it. Internet skills measured in terms of its usage for purposes and found that majority (63.57%) of the respondents were in medium category. Slightly more than half of the respondents had medium usage of social networking sites for academics (55.71%), medium to high level of awareness (52.86%) towards blended learning and medium level of self-regulated learning behaviour (51.43%). Majority of the students’ had medium Academic motivation (55.71%) and self-confidence (67.86%)

1. Akkoyunlu B. and Soylu M. Y. (2006) Turk. Online J. Distance Educ., 7(3), 43-56.

2. Allen I. E. and Seaman J. (2010) Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium, 1-26.
3. Arlinghaus K.R. and Johnston C.A. (2017) Am. J. Lifestyle Med., 12(2), 113-116.
4. Christensen C.M., Horn M.B. and Staker H. (2013) Clayton Christensen Institute, San Francisco, 26-31.
5. Coman C., Tiru L. G., Schmitz L. M., Stanciu C. and Bularca M.C. (2020) Sustain, 12(24), 1-24.
6. Garrison D. R. and Kanuka H. (2004) Internet High. Educ., 7(2), 95-105.
7. Graham C. R. (2006) Pfeiffer, San Francisco, 3-21.
8. Guzer B. and Caner H. (2014) Procedia Soc., 116, 4596-4603.
9. Johnson D. and Maddux C. (2003) Comput. Sch., 20(1/2), 1-186.
10. Jayanthi R. (2019) Int. J. Sci. Dev. Res., 4(4), 387-397.
11. Luo Y. (2021) BCP Soc. Sci. Humanit., 14, 190-94.
12. Marco F.A., Penichet V.M.R. and Lázaro J. A. G. (2013) In S. F. Tang, & L. Logonnathan (Eds.). Taylor’s 7th teaching and learning conference proceedings, 727-34.
13. Movahedi R. (2012) Int. J. Agric. Sci. Res. Technol., 2(3), 149-155.
14. Nazarenko A. (2015) Procedia Soc. 200, 77-82.
15. Saliba G., Rankine L. and Cortez H. (2013) University of Western Sydney, Australia, 38.
16. Sivathaasan N. and Velnampy T. (2013) Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ., 5(14), 46-52.
17. Tao J., Ramsey C. and Watson M. (2011) Int. J. Educ. Technol. Distance learn, 8(1), 41-60.
18. Yang M., You M. and Chen F. (2015) Des. Stud., 26(2), 155- 189.