PREFERRED TEACHING STYLES OF YOUNG FACULTIES IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION-A CASE STUDY OF TAMIL NADU

P. JAISRIDHAR¹*
¹Department of Social Sciences, Horticultural College & Research Institute for Women, Tiruchirappalli, 620009, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : drjai.extn@gmail.com

Received : 01-12-2020     Accepted : 13-12-2020     Published : 15-12-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 23       Pages : 10451 - 10453
Int J Agr Sci 12.23 (2020):10451-10453

Keywords : Staffordshire Evaluation, Teaching Styles, Scoring Grid, SETS tool
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Social Sciences, Horticultural College & Research Institute for Women, Tiruchirappalli, 620009, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, India
Author Contribution : Sole author

The present study aimed to investigate preferred teaching styles of young faculties in agricultural education among 23 constituent colleges of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003using Staffordshire Evaluation of Teaching Styles (SETS). An online survey was conducted among 156 young faculties of 2014 Batch working in different constituent colleges of TNAU and 73 faculties respondent to the survey. The results showed that, 62.53 percent preferred The one-off teacher style followed by 62.26 percent preferring The student centered, sensitive teacher style. The all-round flexible and adaptable teaching style was preferred by 61.64 percent. The Official Curriculum Teacher was preferred by 61.23 percent, 58.97 percent preferred “The Big Conference Teacher” and 58.08 percent of the faculties preferred The Straight Fact no Non-sense Teacher” type of teaching style. From the results, it was concluded that, blended teaching approach can balance a teachers personal strengths and interest with student’s needs and curricular requirements enables a teacher to tailor their teaching according to the student’s needs and as per subject matter

1. Khodaparast Haghi A. (2005) J. of Engineering Education, 7(28), 11-22.
2. Frunza V. (2014) Procedia Social and Behavioral Sci., 127, 342-46.
3. Anderson A. (2012) Journal of Engineering Education, 8, 15-28.
4. Tong L.F. & Han Y.B. (2005) Applying TQM philosophy to the teaching and learning process, Malaysia: Monash University.
5. Shim S.H. (2008) Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 515- 535.