Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Benefits and challenges of online instruction in

agriculture and natural resource education

Omkar Joshi, Binod Chapagain, Gehendra Kharel, Neelam C. Poudyal, Bryan

D. Murray & Sayeed R. Mehmood

To cite this article: Omkar Joshi, Binod Chapagain, Gehendra Kharel, Neelam C. Poudyal,
Bryan D. Murray & Sayeed R. Mehmood (2020): Benefits and challenges of online instruction
in agriculture and natural resource education, Interactive Learning Environments, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2020.1725896

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1725896

Published online: 12 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 69

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1725896

Benefits and challenges of online instruction in agriculture and

natural resource education
Omkar Joshi a, Binod Chapagain a, Gehendra Kharel b
, Neelam C. Poudyalc,
Bryan D. Murraya and Sayeed R. Mehmoodd
a
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA;
b
Department of Environmental Sciences, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA; cDepartment of Forestry,
Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA; dSchool of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Many land-grant institutions with agriculture and natural resource Received 10 August 2019
programs in the United States offer online courses to meet student Accepted 2 February 2020
demand. The goal of this study was to understand how major
KEYWORDS
educational stakeholders, including instructors and students, perceive SWOT-AHP; learning
the benefits and limitations of online teaching and learning in perceptions; online learning;
agriculture and natural resource sciences. This study utilized a mixed agriculture and natural
mode data collection method, which involved informal meetings as well resource
as online survey administration. The data were analyzed through
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)-Analytic
Hierarchical Process (AHP) framework. The study results offer novel
perspectives on the perceived utility and challenges of several attributes
of online learning including work-home balance, lack of social
interactions, virtual classroom opportunities for working professionals,
and academic integrity and cyber scam issues among others. Our
findings may be beneficial to academic administrators, instructors, and
institutions in identifying opportunities, challenges, and adopting
programmatic strategies to improve effectiveness of online learning.

Introduction
Online learning, a form of distance learning, refers to educational use of the Internet and associated
technology (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). With the technological advancement and
increased access to the Internet, interest in online learning has grown since 2000 (Tallent-Runnels
et al., 2006). Many land-grant institutions in the United States, including those with agriculture and
natural resource programs, have adopted online instruction to accommodate student demand and
optimize university resources. Several degree-granting natural resource programs have developed
a common platform called the Natural Resource Distance Learning Consortium (NRDLC) to serve
the educational needs of working professionals (Lindsey, 2009).
Enrollment in online courses in U.S. higher educational institutions has grown for 14 consecutive
years since 2002, with 6.3 million students (∼30%) taking at least one online course in fall 2016
(Seaman & Seaman, 2017). However, just five percent of the 4,700 colleges and universities serve
nearly half of all online students (Seaman & Seaman, 2017). The number of students taking only tra-
ditional in-class courses has dropped by more than one million (6.4 percent) between 2012 and 2016

CONTACT Binod Chapagain binod.chapagain@okstate.edu

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 O. JOSHI ET AL.

(Seaman & Seaman, 2017). In Oklahoma alone, 35% of college students were enrolled in at least one
online course in 2015, and 12% of enrollments were exclusively online (Seaman & Seaman, 2017).
While demand for online learning has been continuously growing, some empirical studies suggest
that face-to-face learning provides better educational experiences compared to any form of distance
learning. For example, Brown and Liedholm (2002) conducted experimental research on the effective-
ness of online courses over those offered in the classroom. Their analysis was focused on whether the
mode of instruction affected the ability of students to learn the principle of microeconomics—a
common course among students within the economics major. The authors found that students
who registered for online classes performed relatively poorly in the examinations. Although online
learners fared well with the basic learning tasks that involved textbook definitions, they performed
poorly when translating concepts into deeper understanding. A meta-analysis of comparative dis-
tance education literature synthesized 232 studies across the world and provided similar conclusions
(Bernard et al., 2004).
Despite challenges and criticisms, online learning offers several benefits over traditional in-person
learning. For example, Appana (2008) conducted a review of benefits and limitations of online learn-
ing from the perspective of student, non-tenured instructor, and tenured faculty and concluded that
it is a worthwhile investment. The potential benefits included access to new markets for education
institutes and universities, cost effectiveness in the long run, and potential partnerships with inter-
national institutions. However, online learning was associated with challenges such as poor
student and institutional readiness, as well as higher start-up costs. In summary, successful online
instruction is a self-paced educational effort that requires commitment, dedication, and self-discipline
from learners (Hung & Chou, 2015). As a result, interest in online learning varies among learners, and
their intention to use online learning is positively influenced by cognitive measurements such as per-
ceived self-efficacy of online instruction and perceived usefulness towards online learning (Liaw,
Huang, & Chen, 2007). While there are both opportunities and challenges associated with online
learning, Tempelaar, Niculescu, Rienties, Gijselaers, and Giesbers (2012) asserts that a hybrid learning
environment, which combines online learning with face-to-face instruction, could serve as a better
option for cognitively demanding domains such as statistics and mathematics.
Instructors and students, two important stakeholders of any instructional process, may have
differing attitudes towards online learning. While the pace of technological innovation has made
online instruction more feasible, both instructors and students still face certain challenges. For
example, instructors often find it difficult to keep themselves up-to-date with the cutting-edge tech-
nology. In addition, the traditional role of the instructor as a direct controller of the teaching process
has diminished to a facilitator in a technology-mediated online platform (Arbaugh, 2010; Hung &
Chou, 2015; Schoonenboom, 2012). Therefore, students have to make a significant shift in their
role from a “passive classroom” participant to “active inquirer” of knowledge (Hung & Chou, 2015).
The effectiveness of online instruction has been highlighted in the environmental sciences sector
(Li & Krasny, 2019; Li, Krasny, & Russ, 2014). By comparing knowledge and attitudes about online
environmental programs among junior high school students in Greece, Aivazidis, Lazaridou, and
Hellden (2006) found that the use of computer-assisted education had a positive impact on edu-
cational outcomes as well as student attitudes towards the environment. Recently, Li et al. (2014) con-
ducted a content analysis to understand the role of online course participants and instructors in
developing professional networks among peers in environmental education courses. Li and Krasny
(2019) highlighted how face-to-face activities, an online learning environment, and a hybrid learning
environment impacted the ability of learners to develop a professional network. They found that par-
ticipant interaction had a positive relationship with the development of professional networks as well
as the motivation to learn.
Although previous research provides insights on the effectiveness of online learning in environmental
sciences, a critical review of these studies suggest that they did not provide quantifiable matrices that
could help compare the relative importance of different attributes that may affect online learning.
Given that agricultural and natural resource instruction involves field visits, specimen or data collections,
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

laboratory equipment, team-work experience, and excursion tours to enhance learning, online learning
may bring unique challenges as well as benefits to pedagogical pattern of this discipline. In this study, we
aimed to analyze how instructors and students in agricultural and natural resource programs perceive
potential benefits and limitations of online learning in U.S. institutions.

Agricultural and natural resource education and online learning

The Morrill Act of 1862 envisioned a tripartite mission of teaching, research, and outreach in public
land-grant universities, which paved an institutional mechanism to establish agricultural education in
the United States (Meyers & Irani, 2011). Since land-grant institutions mandate the practical nature of
education to common citizens (Parr, Trexler, Khanna, & Battisti, 2007), the pedagogical necessity of
this discipline demands experience-based learning. Therefore, a web-based instruction of agriculture
education may come with trade-offs.
In the past, several studies across the globe have assessed the values and trade-offs of online learn-
ing in agricultural and natural resource programs (e.g. Agber & Agwu, 2013; Ahmadpour & Mirdamadi,
2010; Alston & English, 2007). The primary focus of existing research has been on application and use-
fulness of Internet materials for extension agents who are in frequent contact with farmers (Ahmad-
pour & Mirdamadi, 2010), identifying appropriate extension approach or water issues (Chapagain et
al., 2020), instructors who prepare teaching materials and web-enhanced learning materials for stu-
dents to enhance their knowledge (Agber & Agwu, 2013; Alston & English, 2007), agricultural pro-
fessionals who use online learning repositories (Manouselis, Salokhe, & Keizer, 2009), and those who
use mobile technologies (e.g. mobile phones and iPods) in teaching and learning of agricultural
sciences (Mtega, Bernard, Msungu, & Sanare, 2012; Murphrey, Miller, & Roberts, 2009). In summary,
these studies concluded that the use of online resources and tools have been widely used and contin-
ued to rise worldwide in tandem with technological advancement and increased Internet accessibility.
Other research efforts have been made to understand opportunities and challenges associated with
online learning in public and land-grant institutions in the United States. To this end, Lloyd, Byrne, and
McCoy (2012) studied the perceived barriers to online teaching at a public institution located in the
southern United States. The study found a range of interpersonal, institutional, training and technol-
ogy, and cost/benefit-related perceived barriers that varied by gender, experience, and rank of
faculty and administrators. As a part of a broader study conducted by the Association of Public and
Land-Grant Universities, Seaman (2009) conducted a survey of faculties from 69 universities across
the United States. Although 80% of those surveyed faculties recommended online learning, they
also expressed concerns about quality of teaching and learning instruction with the platform. Likewise,
faculties cited additional efforts involved in developing teaching materials as a major barrier for suc-
cessful online learning. Allen and Seaman (2011) noted that instructors believe that developing and
teaching an online class takes more time and effort than face-to-face methods of instruction.
While previous research has attempted to comprehend effectiveness of online learning in general,
there are two important knowledge gaps concerning online learning in the agricultural and natural
resource sciences. First, while past research has documented student or instructor opinions of online
instruction, quantifiable metrics on the relative merits and demerits of online instruction are lacking.
Second, previous efforts that contextualized online learning in environmental education were
general and did not specifically provide insights on how online learning affects the instructional mis-
sions of agriculture and natural resource programs in the U.S. To fill this knowledge gap, this study
assessed and compared the perceptions of college students and instructors regarding adoption and
effectiveness of online instruction in agriculture and natural resource sciences. In particular, this social
science inquiry aimed to understand two major research questions: a) whether and how much
benefits of online learning supersede to the challenges related to agriculture and natural sciences;
b) do student and instructor opinions regarding adoption and effectiveness of online learning
differ or not?
4 O. JOSHI ET AL.

Methods
This study is primarily built upon theoretical premises of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT)- is a commonly used strategic analysis tool. The SWOT-AHP is a procedure designed
to capture stakeholder opinion on any proposal, policy or issue (Dwivedi & Alavalapati, 2009). As a
strategic planning tool, SWOT envisions that a good match between the internally available resources
and pragmatically achievable possibilities ensures the success of any plan or the program (Agarwal,
Grassl, & Pahl, 2012). In other words, SWOT analysis provides a feedback mechanism to management
on whether the internal factors of a program or policy can adequately adapt with the externalities
(Agarwal et al., 2012). The SWOT component documents perceived qualitative observations of stake-
holders on four major attributes, namely: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Kurttila,
Pesonen, Kangas, & Kajanus, 2000). Among these attributes, strengths and weaknesses characterize
the internal aspect of the issue under consideration, whereas opportunities and threats reveal situa-
tional factors detailing the external environment (Starr, Joshi, Will, & Zou, 2019).
The AHP, on the other hand, is as a multi-criteria decision-making tool that develops quantifiable
scales of the criteria and the alternatives based on their relative importance (Saaty, 2004). Therefore,
AHP helps in quantifying comparable human judgments, which can be used to prioritize alternative
sets of policies and programs (Saaty, 2004). While SWOT is a powerful tool for qualitative insights, it
cannot quantify relative importance among the attributes. Therefore, prioritization and quantification
of SWOT attributes can be done within the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) platform (Star et al.,
2019). Accordingly, we built our research platform within the SWOT-AHP framework that can quantify
relative merits and demerits of the online instruction in agriculture and the natural resource sciences.
The following steps were used in the SWOT-AHP process:

1. SWOT factor determination and survey instrument preparation: The factor determination was the
first step of this analysis, which involved identification of major factors that characterize strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to online learning (Table 1). We reviewed pertinent
literature and conducted a group discussion to brainstorm several SWOT factors, which were nar-
rowed down to the top four by seeking opinions from ten additional experts having prior experi-
ence or meaningful knowledge on online learning. In the draft survey instrument, the first section
sought institutional affiliation of the respondent, the second section contained SWOT factors, and
a third section documented stakeholder opinion on online learning in agricultural and natural
resource sciences in a five-point Likert scale.
2. First round of survey administration: We administered the first round of surveys through the Qual-
trics platform (Qualtrics, 2019) among instructors and students within the Department of Natural
Resource Ecology and Management (NREM) at Oklahoma State University. The Oklahoma State
University’s Office of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the final survey instrument1 and
protocols. Following past SWOT-AHP studies (Joshi, Parajuli, Kharel, Poudyal, & Taylor, 2018;
Kharel, Joshi, Miller, & Zou, 2018; Star et al., 2019), we provided detailed description about

Table 1. SWOT factors used to analyze perceptions of instructors and students about online instruction and learning.
Strengths Weaknesses
S1. Work home balance W1. Diminished quality of instruction
S2. Generally less expensive W2. Lack of social interactions
S3. Access to recorded lectures W3. Delay in feedback from instructor
S4. Facilitates student/instructor autonomy W4. Lack of hands-on experience (e.g. field trips)
Opportunities Threats
O1. Virtual classroom for working professionals T1. May challenge university prestige in long-run
O2. Cultivates independent learning environment T2. Vulnerable to scams or academic dishonesty
O3. Helps to improve self-discipline T3. Obstacle for innovative ideas
O4. Increases diversity in the higher education T4. Societal skepticism on quality of education
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

online learning and its potential pitfalls and benefits to reduce cognitive burden among potential
respondents. The total number of respondents for the first survey was 65, which included 52 stu-
dents and 13 instructors. A scale suggested by Saaty (1977), which included ranges from equal to
extreme importance, was used for pair-wise comparison.
3. Data analysis and second round of survey administration: The data analysis involved pairwise com-
parison among the SWOT factors. The process followed the protocols proposed by Saaty (1977),
which involved the development of a reciprocal matrix, as postulated below (Dwivedi & Alavalapati,
2009; KC, Stainback, & Chhetri, 2014; Masozera, Alavalapati, Jacobson, & Shrestha, 2006):
⎛w w w1 ⎞
1 1
···
⎜ w1 w2 wn ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜
A = (aij ) = ⎜ .. .
.. .. ⎟ (1)
. . ⎟
⎝ wn wn ⎠
···
w1 wn

In the above equation, the matrix element and weights of relative priorities were represented as aij
and w respectively. This relationship can be further extended to develop an identity matrix of size n.
W(A − n∗I) = 0 (2)
Finally, results based on pairwise comparison (Eq.1) need to be checked for consistency on the basis
of the eigenvector (ʎmax), as follows:
(ʎ max − n)
CI = (3)
n−1
The values coming from pairwise comparison are considered internally consistent if the Consist-
ency Index (CI) is less than 10% (Joshi et al., 2018; Saaty, 1977). The pairwise comparison values in
each SWOT categories were compared and the highest ranked values were considered for the
second round of survey development. Since both stakeholder groups (instructors and students)
had different priorities for SWOT factors, two different survey instruments were administered. The
total number of respondents for the second survey was 10 and 46, respectively.
The SWOT analysis was supplemented with the stakeholders’ opinion analysis concerning rele-
vancy, effectiveness, and need of online learning in agriculture and natural sciences. Given the
ordinal nature of opinion related data, the Mann–Whitney U test was used for between-groups com-
parison to identify whether opinions differed between instructors and students.

Results
SWOT-AHP based results
The results provided insightful information on SWOT attributes related to online learning. AHP analysis was
performed to calculate priority scores (p) for each of the 16 factors using the first survey response (factor
priority) and four categories using the second survey response (global priority) of SWOT (Table 2). These
scores indicated differences and similarities in the perceived importance of SWOT factors and categories.
The factor priority scores indicated that both instructors and students identified “lack of hands-on experi-
ence (e.g. field trips)” as the most important Weaknesses of distance learning. However, for the rest of the
factors, these two groups differed in their opinions. Instructors prioritized “work home balance,” “virtual
classroom for working professionals,” and “societal skepticism on quality of education” as the most impor-
tant Strengths, Opportunities, and Threats, respectively. In contrast, students identified “generally less
expensive,” “increases diversity in the higher education,” and “vulnerable to scams or academic dishon-
esty” as the most important Strengths, Opportunities and Threats, respectively.
The global priority scores indicated that both instructors and students perceived the Weaknesses and
Strengths categories as the most important in distance learning (Figure 1). For instructors, the
6 O. JOSHI ET AL.

Table 2. Scores of priorities for SWOT factors and categories given by instructors and students.
SWOT factors Factor priority Global priority
Instructor Student Instructor Student
Strengths 0.25 0.29
S1. Work home balance 0.31 0.27 0.08 0.08
S2. Generally less expensive 0.22 0.31 0.06 0.09
S3. Access to recorded lectures 0.27 0.25 0.07 0.07
S4. Facilitates student/instructor autonomy 0.21 0.17 0.05 0.05
Weaknesses 0.43 0.38
W1. Diminished quality of instruction 0.14 0.29 0.06 0.11
W2. Lack of social interactions 0.29 0.16 0.13 0.06
W3. Delay in feedback from instructor 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.06
W4. Lack of hands-on experience (e.g. field trips) 0.42 0.40 0.18 0.15
Opportunities 0.14 0.18
O1. Virtual classroom for working professionals 0.35 0.24 0.05 0.04
O2. Cultivates independent learning environment 0.21 0.25 0.03 0.04
O3. Helps to improve self-discipline 0.18 0.25 0.03 0.04
O4. Increases diversity in the higher education 0.25 0.26 0.04 0.05
Threats 0.18 0.15
T1. May challenge university prestige in long-run 0.20 0.15 0.04 0.02
T2. Vulnerable to scams or academic dishonesty 0.34 0.32 0.06 0.05
T3. Obstacle for innovative ideas 0.11 0.22 0.02 0.03
T4. Societal skepticism on quality of education 0.35 0.31 0.06 0.05
Note: Bold values in the factory priority indicate the highest ranking factor in each SWOT category. Bold values in the global priority
indicate the overall priority scores for each SWOT category.

Figure 1. A diagram describing the relative importance of the SWOT attributes concerning online learning.

Weaknesses category received the highest priority (p = 0.42) followed by Strengths (p = 0.25), Threats (p
= 0.18), and Opportunities (p = 0.14). For students, Weaknesses received the highest priority score (p =
0.38) followed by Strengths (p = 0.25), Opportunities (p = 0.18) and Threats (p = 0.15). The global priority
scores are usually used to gauge the positive and negative sentiment or perceptions of a given issue. The
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

sum of the Strengths and Opportunities scores indicate positive perceptions while the sum of the Weak-
nesses and Threats scores indicate negative perceptions (Dwivedi & Alavalapati, 2009; KC et al., 2014;
Masozera et al., 2006). In this study, the combined positive values were 0.39 and 0.47 for instructors
and students, respectively, while the negative values were 0.61 and 0.53. With negative values outweigh-
ing the positive values, our analysis revealed that both instructors and students expressed pessimistic
views on distance learning in agriculture and natural resource sciences programs.
The CR values reveal the degree of agreement about factors among the participants, with lower CR
indicating more uniformity of opinions and vice-versa (e.g. Dwivedi & Alavalapati, 2009). The CRs of
instructors and students were within the generally accepted value (CR < 10%) for all factors within
each SWOT category (Table 3). We found a solid agreement in SWOT responses among the participants
for both instructors (CR < 1.2) and students (CR < 0.9) in the first survey (Table 3). However, we found a
wider disagreement (CR = 1.2) among instructors for the factors that constitute the Strengths category,
while students had a nearly perfect agreement (CR = 0.3) in this category. For the rest of the three cat-
egories of Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, both instructors and students had nearly identical
perceptions about the underlying factors. Since the CR scores were well within the acceptable range in
the first survey, we used these responses to identify the factor that received the highest priority in each
SWOT category. Then, we administered the second survey asking the participants to make a pairwise
comparison of these four factors, each representing S, W, O, and T. We found strong agreement among
the participants with CR = 2.8 for instructors and CR = 0.9 for students.

Opinions on online learning

Both instructors and students exhibited similarity in their opinions regarding online learning in agriculture
and natural resource science. However, instructors had higher agreement with each of the statements
(Figure 2), except statements that online learning helps in building partnerships among professionals,

Table 3. Measure of perception consistency of instructors and students in two surveys.

Consistency Ratio (CR %)
Survey round SWOT Instructors Students
1 Strengths 1.2 0.3
Weaknesses 0.9 0.8
Opportunities 0.8 0.9
Threats 0.7 0.7
2 Ranking of the highly ranked SWOT factors from 1* 2.8 0.9
*Note: In the second round of survey, instructors and students made a pairwise comparison of the results obtained from the first
survey. CR < 10% is considered acceptable.

Figure 2. Respondents’ opinion, measured on a scale of 1 (highly disagree) to 5 (very agree), on statements related to online learn-
ing in agriculture and natural resource science.
8 O. JOSHI ET AL.

Table 4. Respondent opinions’ on statements related to online learning in agriculture and natural resource sciences.
Statements Chi-square statistics P-value
Too technical to implement for natural resource professionals 1.05 0.0903
Real-world experience is limited 1.61 0.807
Provides career growth opportunity to field professionals 3.17 0.529
Provides opportunity to take natural resource classes from multiple institutions 1.78 0.777
It becomes easier to partner with professionals from university, business, civic, and 3.74 0.441
government agencies
I have taken or am inclined to take online courses in the future 5.97 0.201

and that it provides limited real-world experience. Students had comparatively higher agreement on
these statements. Most of the students and instructors had a high level of agreement that online learning
provides limited real-world experience and they had relatively higher agreement that online courses can
be taken through various institutions. Similarly, both groups disagreed that online learning, largely built
on cutting-edge technology, is too technical to grasp for natural resource professionals. Although stu-
dents and instructors had slightly different levels of agreement on each of the statements, the chi-
square tests (p < 0.05) found that opinions between the groups did not differ significantly (Table 4).

Discussion
The study results provide interesting observations concerning the positive and negative aspects of
online learning. Overall, the negative aspects of online learning, which were quantified by combining
Weaknesses and Threats together, outweighed the positive aspects (i.e. Strengths and Opportunities).
As was evident from both the SWOT-AHP and Chi-square analysis (Table 2 and Table 4), survey par-
ticipants were skeptical of limited field exposure and real-world experience with online learning. Like
other place-based education programs, hands-on field experience helps to integrate academic train-
ing with real-world issues (Powers, 2004) and prepares students to become future leaders that can
handle resource management challenges. As such, across-the-board consensus among stakeholders
in their assessment concerning the lack of hands-on experience with online learning is a legitimate
concern and needs attention of those seeking to promote online education. For example, degrees
focusing heavily on online instruction may need stronger emphasis on internship, job-shadowing,
or service-learning opportunities.
Both instructors and students rated “higher vulnerability of online learning with Internet scams or
academic dishonesty’ as the topmost threat associated with online learning” (Table 2). These are
legitimate concerns as scams from contract cheating websites that accept fees to complete academic
assignments for the students are on the rise (Rowland, Slade, Wong, & Whiting, 2018). Further, online
learning platforms are more vulnerable to academic cheating given that students are able to access
exams or other sensitive materials from wherever they want (Lanier, 2006).
Despite these concerns, both stakeholder groups acknowledged the importance of work-home
balance in online learning (Table 2), which creates career advancement opportunities for natural
resource field professionals who otherwise could not attend a traditional classroom. Likewise, as
Figure 2 suggests, neither students nor instructors considered online course delivery to be too tech-
nical for natural resource professionals. Similar to what Miller and Lu (2003) highlighted, field pro-
fessionals seeking career growth opportunity through higher education are the non-traditional
students that may bring a variety of emotions to the classroom arising from family concerns to work-
place stress or displeasure. As such, a virtual platform with online learning provides them an oppor-
tunity to learn from anywhere at any time (Miller & Lu, 2003).
With the lack of social interaction, which conflicts with the traditional psyche of being a student,
and value of learning/growing together in a shared space, instructors may see benefit in integrating
social and group learning activities in their online curriculum (Table 2). For example, student engage-
ment and peer communication could be enhanced with the addition of class discussion forums,
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

message boards, peer-reviewing, blogging, chatting hours, etc. Interestingly, we noticed subtle differ-
ences between stakeholders concerning their perceptions of opportunities to have social interaction
in online learning. The scored value of factor priorities for lack of social interaction, as the weakness of
online learning, was almost two times more among instructors compared to students. While lack of
social interaction is among the most important barriers in online learning, perceptions may depend
upon age, gender, and perceived confidence with learning technology (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005).
Previous research also suggests a disparity between students and instructors on the importance of
interaction in an online learning platform (Roby, Ashe, Singh, & Clark, 2013).
Our study results lead to important management implications. For example, agriculture and
natural resource programs need to create a learning atmosphere that can mimic real-world situations
through augmented reality. Although hands-on experiences such as field trips are not possible in
online classes, augmented reality may serve as a bridge to connect real-world environmental chal-
lenges within the virtual platform (Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). Instructors may think about crea-
tive ways (incentives, flexible modules) to engage students to take advantage of real-world
experiences to complement their online learning. For example, a student of plant pathology may
visit an aphid-infested soybean field in her own time and earn some bonus points. A student enrolled
in an online course on natural resource policy may watch a CSPAN TV channel to observe a legislature
in session, or visit a city council meeting to understand how lawmakers negotiate on political agenda.
It is worth noting that educational use of augmented reality is still in its infancy and suffers from some
technological, pedagogical, and learning issues (Wu et al., 2013). Future empirical studies identifying
a need, relevance, and scope of augmented reality in agriculture and natural resource education are
needed. In addition, while multi-institutional networking is welcomed by both stakeholders (Figure
2), it may suffer from course duplication and redundancy without knowledge gap identification
and curriculum mapping (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009). With the level of autonomy and independence
in a modern higher education setting (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009), it is easy to lose track of who is teach-
ing what courses and how course offerings align with degree requirements and improved student
experience. Therefore, initiatives such as the Natural Resource Distance Learning Consortium
(NRDLC) may provide useful educational information to prospective students (Lindsey, 2009).
Finally, given the level of threats associated with cheating, scams, and dishonesty, institutions con-
sidering enhancement of online education may consider options to increase instructor’s oversight
of student’s work, adopt pro-active policies to minimize academic dishonesty, which may include:
course offerings on ethics and integrity, repeated explanation of honor code, tracking academic
work through IP (Internet Protocol) address, and use of plagiarism detection software (Lanier, 2006).
One limitation of this study is worth noting. While the focus of our work was to document positive
and negative aspects of online teaching in agriculture and natural resource programs, we could not
include the perspectives of administrators (i.e. deans, associate deans, department heads, academic
advising staffs), who are another important stakeholder of the education system. This limitation occurred
partly because our sample was limited to a natural resources department at a university, which did not
provide us with a large enough number of respondents for that category. As such, we recommend that
this topic be investigated through future research efforts. Overall, our work has identified several issues
that may help with effective online course delivery within agriculture and natural resource programs.

Conclusion
Despite the growth of online education programs in recent years, skepticism still exists on instruc-
tional success of this platform. In addition, technology mediated online platform causes loss of
face-to-face interaction between instructor and student, and among the students. By utilizing
SWOT-APH approach, this study compared the factors that are important to instructors and students
about online learning. In addition, statistical analysis was conducted to compare instructor and stu-
dents opinions on open-ended statements. Despite subtle differences on other attributes, both
groups agreed that lack of hands-on experience such as field trips was the major weakness of
10 O. JOSHI ET AL.

online learning. Our findings suggest that agriculture and natural resource programs interested in
promoting online education may benefit from: 1) creating a learning atmosphere that can mimic
real-world situations, such as augmented reality, 2) incentivizing students to take advantage of
local opportunities for real-world experiences, 3) fostering social interaction among students
through the addition of social or peer-engaging activities, and 4) preserving academic integrity
and cyber security through the adoption of effective oversight and secure platforms. While this
study focused on agriculture and natural resource programs, the results have implications for
other programs that wish to offer online learning opportunities but also require experience-based
learning.

Note
1. The approved survey instrument is available upon request.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Omkar Joshi is an assistant professor in the Natural Resource Ecology and Management Department at the Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater where he teaches forest management and economics, forest resource management, and
human dimension of natural resources. His research interest focus on ecosystem services valuation of forest and
other natural resources, human dimension and economics related issues in natural resources, wood-based and other
renewable energy issues, wildlife and energy economics. So far, Dr. Joshi has published forty journal articles and has
worked as reviewer for more than a dozen of journals.
Binod Chapagain is a postdoctoral fellow in the Natural Resource Ecology and Management Department at the Okla-
homa State University, Stillwater. His research interests focus on human dimensions of natural resource, non-market
valuation methods, outdoor recreation, and community-based resource management. Dr. Chapagain has published
in many journals including Journal of Park Research and Administration, Water, Journal of Extension, Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews, and Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Gehendra Kharel is an assistant professor of environmental science at the Texas Christian University where he teaches
hydrology and environmental modeling. His research interests focus on coupled human-nature systems, climate change
mitigation, hydrological modeling, and water resource management. He investigates how different drivers of change-
climate, land use, urbanization, policy, economics, and human behavior, impact water resources in water-limited
regions of the US and elsewhere. He has published in more than a dozen of peer-reviewed journals including Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, Regional Environmental Change, Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
Water, and International Journal of Water Resources Development.
Neelam C. Poudyal is an Associate Professor of Natural Resource Policy and Human Dimensions at University of Tennes-
see, Knoxville. He has a BS in Forestry, MA in Geography and PhD in Natural Resources. He currently teaches several
classes at undergraduate and graduate level including Forest and Wildland Resource Policy, Human Dimensions of
Natural Reosources, People and Forest Practices. He has published over 50 referred journal articles and book chapters.
Bryan Murray is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Oklahoma
State University where he teaches Geospatial Technologies for Natural Resources, Forest Health and Disturbance Ecology,
and Spatial and Non-spatial Database Management for Natural Resources. His research interests are focused on forest
ecology, spatial ecology, functional diversity, and forest wildlife ecology. Dr. Murray has published in many journals
including Ecological Applications, Ecosphere, Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, Ecosystems, Forest Science, and
Ecology.
Sayeed Mehmood is an Associate Professor of Natural Resources Economics in Ohio State’s School of Environment and
Natural Resources. He moved to Ohio State in July 2017 from the University of Arkansas at Monticello. He received his
Ph.D. from Auburn University in Forest Economics and Policy, his M.S. in Forest Economics from the University of Maine
and his B.S. from the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh. In his work he seeks to apply economic and other social
science theories to explain human behavior as it relates to natural resources and the environment.
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

ORCID
Omkar Joshi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3254-6628
Binod Chapagain http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3900-6990
Gehendra Kharel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7463-7181

References
Agarwal, R., Grassl, W., & Pahl, J. (2012). Meta-SWOT: Introducing a new strategic planning tool. Journal of Business
Strategy, 33(2), 12–21.
Agber, T., & Agwu, E. (2013). Assessment of online resources usage by agricultural science lecturers of tertiary institutions
in Benue State, Nigeria. American Journal of Research Communication, 1(10), 254–279.
Ahmadpour, A., & Mirdamadi, M. (2010). Determining challenges in the application of e-learning in agricultural extension
services in Iran. J American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 9(3), 292–296.
Aivazidis, C., Lazaridou, M., & Hellden, G. F. (2006). A comparison between a traditional and an online environmental edu-
cational program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(4), 45–54.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the USA 2011. Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey
Research Group.
Alston, A. J., & English, C. W. (2007). Technology enhanced agricultural education learning environments: An assessment
of student perceptions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 1–10.
Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor and
the tenured faculty. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 5–22.
Arbaugh, J. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses.
Computers & Education, 55(3), 1234–1244.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., … Huang, B. (2004). How does distance edu-
cation compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 379–439.
Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? American
Economic Review, 92(2), 444–448.
Chapagain, B. P., Wagner, K. L., Joshi, O., & Eck, C. J. (2020). Perceived importance of Water Issues and Factors Affecting
Learning Opportunities in Oklahoma. Water, 12(2), 395.
Dwivedi, P., & Alavalapati, J. R. (2009). Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the
southern US. Energy Policy, 37(5), 1999–2007.
Hung, M.-L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ roles in blended and online learning environments: A
comparative study. Computers & Education, 81, 315–325.
Joshi, O., Parajuli, R., Kharel, G., Poudyal, N. C., & Taylor, E. (2018). Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management
policy implementation in Nepal. PloS one, 13(9), e0203106.
KC, B., Stainback, G. A., & Chhetri, B. B. K. (2014). Community users’ and experts’ perspective on community forestry in
Nepal: A SWOT–AHP analysis. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 23(4), 217–231.
Kharel, G., Joshi, O., Miller, R., & Zou, C. (2018). Perceptions of government and research expert groups and
their implications for watershed management in Oklahoma, USA. Environmental Management Journal, 62(6),
1048–1059.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., & Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in
SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(1),
41–52.
Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 244–261.
Li, Y., & Krasny, M. E. (2019). Development of professional networks among environmental educators. Professional
Development in Education, 45, 1–17.
Li, Y., Krasny, M., & Russ, A. (2014). Interactive learning in an urban environmental education online course. Environmental
Education Research, 22(1), 1–18.
Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward elearning. Computers &
Education, 49(4), 1066–1080.
Lindsey, K. J. (2009). The natural resources distance learning Consortium fall 2009 course offerings. Blacksburg, VA: The
Natural Resources Distance Learning Consortium Fall 2009 Course offerings.
Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 8(1), 1–12.
Manouselis, N., Salokhe, G., & Keizer, J. (2009). Comparing different metadata application profiles for agricultural learning
repositories Metadata and Semantics (pp. 469-479). Boston, MA: Springer.
Masozera, M. K., Alavalapati, J. R., Jacobson, S. K., & Shrestha, R. K. (2006). Assessing the suitability of community-based
management for the Nyungwe forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(2), 206–216.
12 O. JOSHI ET AL.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning a
meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
Meyers, C. A., & Irani, T. A. (2011). Measuring the public value of a land-grant university. Journal of Applied
Communications, 95(1), 5.
Miller, M., & Lu, M. Y. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: Building successful commu-
nities in the virtual campus. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 163–169.
Mtega, W. P., Bernard, R., Msungu, A. C., & Sanare, R. (2012). Using mobile phones for teaching and learning purposes in
higher learning institutions: The case of Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26
(1), 29–48.
Murphrey, T. P., Miller, K. A., & Roberts, T. G. (2009). Examining iPod Use by Texas agricultural science and technology
Teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 98–109.
Parr, D. M., Trexler, C. J., Khanna, N. R., & Battisti, B. T. (2007). Designing sustainable agriculture education: Academics’
suggestions for an undergraduate curriculum at a land grant university. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(4), 523–533.
Powers, A. L. (2004). An evaluation of four place-based education programs. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 17–
32.
Qualtrics. (2019). The Leading Research & Experience Software | Qualtrics. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com/
Roby, T., Ashe, S., Singh, N., & Clark, C. (2013). Shaping the online experience: How administrators can influence student
and instructor perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 17(C), 29–37.
Rowland, S., Slade, C., Wong, K.-S., & Whiting, B. (2018). ‘Just turn to us’: The persuasive features of contract cheating
websites. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(4), 652–665.
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3),
234–281.
Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science
and Systems Engineering, 13(1), 1–35.
Schoonenboom, J. (2012). The Use of technology as One of the possible Means of Performing instructor tasks: Putting
technology Acceptance in Context. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1309–1316.
Seaman, J. (2009). Online Learning as a Strategic Asset. Volume II: The Paradox of Faculty Voices–Views and Experiences
with Online Learning. Results of a National Faculty Survey, Part of the Online Education Benchmarking Study
Conducted by the APLU-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning.
Seaman, J. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Distance Education State Almanac 2017. https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/
reports/almanac/national_almanac2017.pdf
Starr, M., Joshi, O., Will, R. E., & Zou, C. B. (2019). Perceptions regarding active management of the cross-timbers forest
resources of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas: A SWOT-ANP analysis. Land use Policy, 81, 523–530.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses
online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.
Tempelaar, D. T., Niculescu, A., Rienties, B., Gijselaers, W. H., & Giesbers, B. (2012). How Achievement emotions impact
students’ Decisions for online learning, and what Precedes those emotions. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3),
161–169.
Uchiyama, K. P., & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: A Vehicle for Collaboration. Innovative
Higher Education, 33(4), 271–280.
Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current Status, opportunities and challenges of augmented
reality in education. Computers & Education, 62(C), 41–49.