Development of online learning activities to enhance student knowledge of animal behaviour prior to engaging in live animal handling practical sessions

doi:10.4236/ojas.2011.12009

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.1, No.2, 65-76 (2011) Open Journal of Animal Sciences

doi:10.4236/ojas.2011.12009

Development of online learning activities to enhance

student knowledge of animal behaviour prior to

engaging in live animal handling practical sessions

Julie M. Old*, Ricky-John Spencer

Native and Pest Animal Unit, School of Natural Sciences, Hawkesbury Campus, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia;

*Corresponding author: j.old@uws.edu.au

Received 16 May 2011, revised 27 May 2011, accepted 22 June 2011.

ABSTRACT

Learning activities were developed to increase

the awareness of animal behaviour among first

year students enrolled in animal-associated

degrees prior to students engaging in hands-on

live animal practical sessions. Learning activi-

ties were developed in an easy to use collegial

online environment and to encourage student

engagement in learning activities. One hundred

and one students were given a preliminary and

post learning activity su rvey to assess their ini-

tial knowledge and experience of animal be-

haviour, as well as to determine if the learning

activities increased the students’ knowledge of

animal behaviour after engaging in the learning

activities. Of the students surveyed, most cur-

rently owned pets or have had pets (91.1%),

some had animal-related qualifications (22.8%)

and currently worked in an animal-related posi-

tion (24.8%). There was a significant difference

(70.3% increase) in student responses after

engaging in the learning activities with the ma-

jor change occurring in the students’ under-

standing of the term ‘ethology’, regardless of

the level of qualifications or animal-related ca-

reer experience. In addition, after engaging in

the learning activities, most students believed

that they could better articulate and interpret

animal behaviors based on their observations.

Overall, the inclusion of learning activities

successfully increased the ability of students to

understand behavioral traits of animals, which

will increase safety in live animal practical ses-

sions. The learning activities also encouraged a

collegial learning environment that enhanced

new knowledge construction amongst the stu-

dents.

Keywords: Agriculture; Animal Science; Ethology;

Learning; Safety

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of animals in laboratory and field environ-

ments for undergraduate teaching is vital in animal sci-

ence, agriculture, zoology and veterinary science, how-

ever there has been increased scrutiny, and justification

associated with their use in these contexts. Amongst the

many issues covered by the term ‘bioethics’, the use of

animals for teaching and research remains a hot topic,

with animal rights groups, the general public and ulti-

mately legislation requiring increased standards and

greater accountability by tertiary institutions. At the

coalface are the undergraduate students that are actively

using and learning from their experiences with animals,

but it is this level which has been largely neglected in

terms of improving standards of animal welfare.

First year undergraduate students are generally ex-

posed to classes involving live animals with no formal

preparation, hence programs that prepare students for

practicals involving live animals, will not only increase

animal welfare standards, but also provide grounding for

improved knowledge assimilation for the student. The

Hawkesbury campus at the University of Western Syd-

ney (UWS) has an extensive history in agricultural

teaching [1,2]. Formerly known as the Hawkesbury Ag-

ricultural College, the agricultu ral educational institution

was established in 1891, and was the first of its kind in

New South Wales, Australia. Over the past few years,

UWS has offered courses in animal science as well as

retaining agricultural degrees. The animal science de-

grees are very popular and currently contain one of the

larger cohorts of students within the School of Natural

Science. The animal science degrees at UWS allow stu-

dents to engage their passion in animals, whether it is

domestic animals, companion animals or wildlife and

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

provide a range of potential career opportunities. The

animal facilities (traditional outdoor domestic animal

facilities including cattle, sheep , horses and deer, as well

as a rat and mouse, native mammal and reptile facilities)

on campus allow a range of handling expertise to be

gained throughout the courses as well as utilising the

wildlife that naturally occur on the campus. In addition

many students enrolled in environment and traditional

science-based courses such as biology, choose electives

from the animal science core units to gain insights into

animal husbandry and obtain animal handling skills.

Over the last few years the university has seen a

change in the student demographic [3]. Previously, many

students enrolling in traditional agricultural degrees

came from farming backgrounds, whereas more recently

the bulk of students enrolling are sourced from the sur-

rounding western Sydney area. The reduced number of

students from farms enrolling in agricultural degrees has

also been evidenced in the United States [4]. Students

without farming backg rounds are therefo re entering th eir

degrees with less and less exposure to a wide range of

animal species and many appear to lack a general under-

standing of animal behaviour.

The learning objectives for one of the first units

within the Animal Science degrees, are aimed at ensur-

ing students learn how to handle, restrain and work with

animals based on the NSW Animal Research Act, UWS

Animal Care and Ethics Committee approved protocols

and the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use

of Animals for Scientific Purposes. However, prior to

students engaging in hands-on animal handling practical

sessions there is a need to ensure students have acquired

some basic observational skills to increase their confi-

dence, around large domesticated animals, as well as

wildlife. Not only should this increase in base level

knowledge improve the educational experience, but

standards of animal welfare should also improve because

students may be better equipped to identify behaviours

indicative of distress and/or discomfort. In the case of

large domestic animals such as horses and cattle, a lack

of understanding of interpreting animal behaviour, can

also lead to either animal, student, or potentially staff

injuries. Likewise, with smaller animals such as rats,

mice, small native mammals and reptiles, bites can occur.

Good animal handling sk ills and an awareness of animal

behaviour is therefore an essential attribute and require-

ment of students during enrolment, and graduating from

animal science degrees, similar to that stated in [5] for

veterinary students.

The aim of this study was to develop learning activi-

ties that increase student awareness of animal behaviour

prior to their engagement in practical sessions. The pa-

per discusses the outcomes of students engaging in the

learning activities prior to hands-on practical sessions

with animals and includes the results of a survey to as-

sess what the students learnt by engaging in the learning

activities. The learning activities were developed using

the online learning environment (Web Course Tools), at

the University of Western Sydney called vUWS.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Development of Learning Activities

A collegial peer learning environment was developed

for students to “post” their opinions using the online

discussion board within vUWS. It was thought this me-

dium would be beneficial to all students as it involves

sharing of experience, knowledge and ideas among the

group members [6] and is learner-centred rather than a

teacher-centred traditional didactic lecture method.

Small groups of students (up to 10) were randomly cho-

sen to work together in the online learning environment

with the aim of enhancing engagement in the learning

activities, social interaction, and physical comfort [7] as

well as critical thinking. The collaborative learning en-

vironment was aimed at promoting critical thinking.

Roberts [8] has previously suggested a collaborative

learning environment is successful because it aids stu-

dents to clarify their ideas during discussions. In addi-

tion, as students were required to write their responses to

one another while unable to see other students’ physical

responses (such as facial expressions) straight away, it

was hoped it would encourage students to reflect on the

“postings”, and their own answers, prior to submitting a

new “post” [9]. The incorporation of the discussion

board into the learning activities was also aimed at in-

creasing inclusiveness, as some students are more likely

to respond (“post” a message) in a non-threatening en-

vironment.

The majority of students enrolled in the animal sci-

ence degrees, as apposed to the wider UWS student

community, enrol after completing secondary school (18

- 20 years), or within one year of completion of school

[3]. Animal science students are therefore presumed to

be generally classified as “tech savvy net geners” [10]

that are adept at communication via email, b logs, twitter

and facebook. The online learning discussion board

available through vUWS is therefore presumably easy

for students and staff to use. A discussion board on

vUWS with small groups (maximum of eight students)

was therefore established to allow discussions regarding

the pictures, sounds or videos provided. Each student

enrolled in the first year Animal Science unit at UWS

was randomly provided with a picture, sound and video

file of an animal or group of animals exhibiting some

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

6767

form of behaviour and asked to “post” a message on the

discussion board stating what they believed the behav-

iour to be and to provide evidence to support their deci-

sion. Each student was then asked to respond to at least

two messages “posted” by another member of their

group. Each group of ten students was therefore pro-

vided with a maximum of 30 files (of three media types)

to discuss and could only see the messages “posted” by

members of their group. There were 11 groups in total.

An additional benefit of having an online resource al-

lowed students to engage in the learning activities at any

time. Many students at UWS have part-time jobs and

decreasing time and money to spend on their studies. In

addition, there is no time lost travellin g to the campus as

students can engage in the learning activities in the

comfort of their own homes or even the local library or

internet café. Tennent and Hyland [11] have previously

found that students enrolled as distance or rural students

valued online discussion boards and many UWS stu-

dents presumably value the flexibility as well.

As students were randomly a l lo c at ed gr ou p s, a n d were

mostly newly enrolled at university, it was highly likely

that the students working together in groups online had

not met. The learning activities conducted within the

first week of semester therefore also acted as an “ice-

breaker” activity and is supported by the findings of

Roberts [8] whereby group work encourages student

self-esteem, allows students to learn more about their

peers and essentially develop a social support network.

The collaborative learning environment developed

therefore allowed students to meet and socialise and de-

velop a social support network with one another. In the

longer term, the learning activities may even aid student

retention.

Apart from the flexibility and collegial benefits pro-

vided by the development of the online teaching re-

source, the online resource can also provide examples to

students of animal behaviours that we can not provide on

campus. These behaviours can include specific behav-

iours of exotic species we do not have on campus, and

other behaviours we can not include due to animal wel-

fare implications such as pain, illness and some interac-

tive behaviours between different species such as preda-

tor/prey behaviour.

2.2. Survey of Student Learning

Preliminary and post learning activity surveys were

conducted using a matched but anonymous design. See

Appendices 1 and 2 for modified versions of the su rvey s.

The original surveys had larger spaces provided for

some of the questions.

The preliminary survey was used to gauge the stu-

dent’s level of interpreting animal behaviour, such as

their perceived level of knowledge of ethology, their

qualifications, and whether or not they had animals of

their own in the past or currently, and what type of ani-

mal (companion, farm, bird, aquatic and reptile) they

have had or currently have prior to engaging in the

learning activities. In addition, students were asked th ese

specific quest i ons :

1) What observational signs can we use to determine

the behaviour of an animal?

2) What signs do you observe in this picture?

3) What behaviour is being exhibited in this picture?

Questions 2) and 3) (above) refer to a picture of two

kangaroos (see Figure 1) and asked students to describe

the behaviour being exhibited and to provide reasoning

in their answer. The kangaroo was chosen as it is an

iconic and widely distributed Australian animal. After

the students engaged in the learning activities, the same

picture was shown to assess the level of change in the

students’ level of observational skills in regard to exhib-

ited animal behaviour.

The final survey also had some questions asking stu-

dents to state what they believed they had learnt about

ethology and allowed them to provide feedback on im-

proving the learning activities for future students. Any

unmatched surveys were removed from the analysis.

Student survey responses were categorised and en-

tered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to allow

graphical comparisons to be made. In addition, the

Primer v5 [12] statistical package was used for compar-

ing student responses, both before and after completing

the learning activities. Specifically, SIMPER, ANOSIM

2.3. Data Analysis

Figure 1. Photograph of mother eastern grey kangaroo

(Macropus giganteus) with young at foot. The photograph was

used in both the surveys to gauge the level of observational

skills of students prior to and after engaging in the learning

activities.

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

and non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) analy-

ses (Primer v5 [13]) were used. Participants were also

grouped based on their perceived experience with ani-

mals or animal husbandry/handling qualifications (ex-

perienced or inexperienced). Bray–Curtis dissimilarities

were used to construct an MDS-diagram. The survey

responses of all participants were then compared, both

before and after completing the learning activities using

these techniques. Participants were also grouped based

on their perceived experience with animals or animal

husbandry/handling qualifications (experienced or inex-

perienced). Similar analyses were conducted to deter-

mine how both groups differ in their responses both be-

fore and after engaging in the learning activities. Prior to

the calculation of the Bray-Curtis indices, data was

standardised and square-root transformed [12,13].

ANOSIM is similar to an ANOVA but for multivariate

statistics. ANOSIM produces an R statistic which corre-

lates to how similar the samples are. This analysis pro-

duces global (over all samples) and pairwise (between

each combination of two samples) R statistics and p

values. An R statistic of one indicates that samples are

completely different while an R statistic of zero indicates

samples are identical [13]. R statistics are only inter-

preted here where p values are < 0.05. SIMPER analysis

produces an average dissimilarity between samples and

gives each species’ percent contribution to this dissimi-

larity.

3. RESULTS

The study led to both a perceived and actual increase

in student awareness of the signs exhibited by animals

and their behaviour after completing the learning activi-

ties. A total of 101 preliminary and 101 post learning

activity surveys were completed. Five surveys that did

not have the corresponding preliminary or post learning

activity survey were removed from the analysis. Overall,

the responses to the survey questions varied significantly

prior to and after students engaged in the learning activi-

ties (Global R = 0.049 p = 0.01; Figure 2).

3.1. Defining Ethology

The major change in the survey responses related to-

the students’ understanding of the definition of ethology

(Tab le 1). Initially 30 students could not define “ethol-

ogy”, and an additional 45 gave an incorrect defini-

tion,whereas 26 students could correctlydefine “ethol-

ogy” prior to starting the learning activities.

Figure 2. MDS plot comparing survey results of all respondents before and after they had

completed the education program. This plot separates respondents based on experience or

qualifications.

Table 1. SIMPER analysis comparing differences in survey results of all respondents before and after they had completed the educa-

tion program.

Initial Final

Mean Abundance Mean AbundanceMean DissimilarityDissimilarity/SD Cumulative %

Definition of Ethology 2.10 1.07 6.85 1.3 12.91

Ears Pricked 0.55 0.69 5.42 1.1 23.13

Animal Sound 0.48 0.57 5.29 1.11 33.09

Erect Stance 0.49 0.63 5.19 1.12 42.88

Animal Body Language 0.88 0.91 5.09 1 52.47

Alert Behaviour 0.30 0.14 4.86 0.9 61.63

Observing 0.23 0.18 4.18 0.91 69.51

Final No Experi-

ence

Final Ex-

erience

Preliminary No

Experience

Preliminary

Experience

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

6969

Other definitions included the study of animal ethics

(12.9%), animal welfare (4.0%), wild animals (5.9%)

and the interactions between animals and the environ-

ment (2.0%), and interactions between animals (23.8%).

After the learning activities were completed, 97 students

could correctly define “ethology”. Overall there was a

70.3% increase in the student’s ability to define ethol-

ogy.

3.2. Student Experience and Perceived

Level of Experience in Ethology

Owning a pet, working in an animal-based position or

having qualifications with some ethology included

would presumably increase a student’s level of experi-

ence in interpreting animal signs and hence their behav-

iours due to their interactions with animals. The survey

suggested most students had or have had pets of some

kind. These students would presumably have obtained

some knowledge of ethology by owning and caring for a

pet. Surprisingly only a small number of students

worked in an animal-based position at the time the sur-

vey was completed and greater than 20% of students had

qualifications that incorporated some form of ethology,

mostly from TAFE (Technical And Further Education),

NSW. Overall, there were only a small number of stu-

dents (24) that stated that they did not have any ethology

experience (or did not know, or did not answer the ques-

tion), compared to 44 students that perceived that they

had a lifetime of experience in ethology and 33 students

had between less than one year and up to four years of

experience. The student’s initial level of perceived ex-

perience in ethology may have been low due to their lack

of knowledge of the term “ethology”.

The type of pet/s owned was of interest as a greater

number and variety of pets owned would presumably

increase the student’s knowledge base of ethology

through their increased interaction with a larger number

of species. Of the 101 preliminary surveys completed,

companion animals (stated as dogs, cats, guinea pigs,

rabbits, horses and mice) were the most common pet

with 79.2% of students stating they currently have a

companion animal as a pet and 80.2% stating that they

have had a companion animal as a pet in the past. The

next most common currently owned pets were aquatic

animals (40.6%), defined as fish and yabbies, and were

slightly more common than birds (38.6%). Previously,

more birds (60.4%) than aquatic pets (47.5%) had been

kept as pets than are currently kept by students. The

fourth most commonly owned pets were farm animals,

(defined as dogs, horses, goats, cattle, deer, sheep and

pigs). Reptiles (snakes, lizards and turtles) were the least

common (17.1%) pets currently owned, as well as

owned in the past (18.8%).

A statistical comparison of pet owners and non-pet

owners was not conducted as only nine students were

shown to never have owned pets. In addition, some

problems arose with the classification of animal species.

Some students classified ducks and chickens as com-

panion animals, others as farm animals, and others

placed them in the ‘birds’ category. Likewise some stu-

dents classified horses and dogs as farm animals and

others as companion animals. Other pets owned included

alpacas, geese, budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulates),

rainbow lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus), galahs

(Cacatua roseicapilla), corellas (Cacatua spp.) and

finches.

Eleven students that were surveyed do not currently

have pets in any of the five groupings, 33 from one

group, 21 from two groupings, 17 from three groupings,

17 from four groupings and two from all five groupings.

Twelve students had never had any other pets in the past

from any of the groupings. Sixteen students of the stu-

dents surveyed had pets in the past from only one

grouping, 27 from two groupings, 29 from three group-

ings, 15 from four groupings and two from five group-

ings. In total there were nine students that did not have

pets currently or in the past from either of the groupings.

In addition to these five groupings, students may also

have other pets not defined by these groupings such as

stick insects, spiders, burrowing cockroaches, beetles,

amphibians such as axolotls or frogs, or mammalian pets

such as ferrets, rats and mice.

Some students (25) stated they work or had worked in

an animal-based position. Three students stated they

worked in a pet or produce store, one worked in a wel-

fare organization, seven worked with horses, four have

worked on farms, two have worked in laboratories, four

work as veterinary nurses, one was an animal attendant

and three have worked in a combination of ani-

mal-related positions.

Most of the students surveyed (76) stated they had

gained no qualifications in ethology. Twenty-three stu-

dents stated they had animal-related qualifications, all of

which were from TAFE. Three stated that they had a

statement of attainment in Animal Care, 11 had Certifi-

cate II qualifications, four had Certificate III, two had

Certificate IV, two had a Diploma and one had an Asso-

ciate Diploma.

3.3. What Observational Signs Can We Use

to Determine the Behaviour of an

Animal?

Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the

students’ responses to the types of observational signs

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

100

animal body

language

animal sound

animal

biorhythms

ani mal

interactions

animal

interactions with

environment

Preliminary

Post

Figure 3. The number of each ‘sign’ stated by students that

can be used to recognise behaviour. Both responses provided

prior to and after engaging in the learning activities are

shown.

that can be used to determine the behaviour of an animal.

Most students stated that animal body language was an

observational sign used to determine animal behaviour

before engaging in the learning activities (88.1%) and

after engaging in the learning activities (89.1%). The

second most commonly stated sign used to determine

animal behaviour was the sound animals made. Initially

48.5% stated sound was one of the factors used to de-

termine the behaviour of an animal an d after the learning

activities there was an increase in this response to 57.4 %.

The reasons for the increase in this response (sound)

may be a reflection on the type of learning activities

provided—videos, photographs and sounds. Prior to the

learning activities being conducted, other observational

signs suggested included animal biorhythms (11.9%),

animal interactions with other animals (9.9%) and ani-

mal interactions with the environment (6.9%). These

suggestions decreased in number after the learning ac-

tivities (5.9%, 3.0% and 7.9% respectively). Prior to the

learning activities, three students did not answer the

question and following the activities, eight students did

not answer the question. In total, only one student did

not answer this question either before or after the learn-

ing activities (1.0%).

Thirty-six students stated only one sign prior to en-

gaging in the learning activities, 56 students stated two

signs, five stated three signs and one student stated four

signs could be used to determine animal behaviour.

Thirty-two students stated one sign after engaging in the

learning activities, 53 stated two, eight stated three and

one student stated that four signs could be used to de-

termine animal behaviour.

3.4. What Signs Do You Observe in This

Picture?

Prior to engagement in the learning activities, students

stated four signs they observed in the picture, namely

erect ears, erect body stance, eyes fixed and paws up,

that could be used to determine behaviour. Figure 4

provides a graphical representation of the student re-

sponses to the signs they observe in the picture provided.

After engaging in the learning activities, another obser-

vational sign was stated, namely, that the young animal

was close to the adult (3.0%). Prior to the learning ac-

tivities, 32 students did not record any observations, 15

stated one observation, 36 stated two observations, 11

stated three and one student stated four signs. After the

learning activities, 15 students noted one observational

sign, 32 noted two, 23 noted three and four noted four.

Twenty-seve n st udents recorded no observati ons.

The most popular observations recorded prior to en-

gaging in the learning activities were ears erect (56.4%),

followed by erect body stance (50.5%), eyes fixed

(12.9%) and paws up (5.0%). Following the learning

activities, there was an increase in all observations re-

corded, as evidenced by 67 students stating that they

observed erect ears, 61 (60.4%) stated they observed an

erect body stance, 25 stated they observed ears fixed,

eight stated they observed paws up and three stated they

observed that the young was close to the mother (a new

observation).

3.5. What Behaviour Is Being Exhibited in

This Picture?

Eight categories were used to classify the behaviour

exhibited in the picture provided. The most commonly

stated behaviour exhibited in the picture, before the stu-

dents engaged in the learn ing activities, were alert/aware

behaviour (45.7%), followed by cautious/curious behav-

iour (28.7%), and observation (22.8%), and in lower

numbers, maternal/protective behaviour (6.9%), listen-

ing (5.9%), calmness (0.9%) and predatory behaviour

(0.9%). Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of

the numbers of behaviours stated by the students to be

occurring in the picture. After the students engaged in

the learning activities, all categories reduced in number

except for the most commonly stated behaviour of

alert/awareness behaviour (51.5%) which increased. No

calmness or predatory behaviour was stated after the

students engaged in the learning activities however

mimicry was suggested (2.0%). There was a consistent

increase in observing and recording most behavioural

traits after engaging in the learning activities, however

the recording of Alert and Observing Behaviours de-

creased (Table 1).

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

7171

ears

pricked erec t body

stance ey es fix edpaws upy oung

c l ose to

mother

Preliminary

Post

Figure 4. The signs stated by students that can be used to

determine behaviour in the picture provided. Both responses

provided prior to and after engaging in the learning activities

are shown.

alert/aware

behaviour

cautious/curious

behaviour

observation

maternal/protective

behaviour

listening

calmness

predatory

behaviour

mimicry

Preliminary

Post

Figure 5. The number of each behaviour occurring in the

picture provided. Both responses provided prior to and after

engaging in the learning activities are shown.

3.6. Statistical Analysis

How respondents changed their survey responses also

depended on perceived experience or qualification level.

Those respondents who considered themselves experi-

enced or qualified in animal husbandry responded dif

ferently after engaging in the learning activities (Table

2). The major differences in their observations and re-

cordings were that they appeared to recognise more

sub-tle behavioural traits (eg. Erect Stance and Ears

Pricked) and not simply stated their observations as

‘alertness’ (Table 3). More experienced students re-

sponded correctly to the definition of ethology before the

education program than inexperienced students. Most

students responded correctly to the definition of ethol-

ogy after completing the learning activities (Table 3).

Similarly, inexperienced participants were more likely

to categorise certain behaviours specifically rather than

simply noting it as ‘alertness’ after completing the

learning activities (Table 4). The responses from inexpe-

rienced students were varied prior to the learning activi-

ties, but they were more similar and consistent after

completing the learning activities (Figure 1). Inexperi-

enced respondents were more likely to define ethology

as either the study of animal ethics or something other

than the study of animal behaviour than experienced

respondents (Table 4). However, after the education

program, very few responded incorrectly.

Although both experienced and inexperienced groups

modified their answers after completing the learning

activities, they modified their answers similarly because

the final survey responses of both experienced and in-

experienced groups did not differ significantly (Table 2).

However perceived experience or qualifications did not

appear to help or significantly affect the initial survey

responses compared to the inexperienced group (Table

2).

3.7. What Did Students Perceive They

Learnt from the Learning Activities?

Fourteen students stated they learnt the meaning of the

word “ethology”. Interestingly 66 students stated they

learnt that you could use a variety of signs to determine

the behaviour of an animal or animals and 24 stated they

had learnt there were different types of animal behave-

Table 2. ANOSIM pairwise comparisons of before and after

surveys from respondents with and without experience with

animals.

R Statistic Significance Level %

Final No Experience,

Final Experience –0.14 93.3

Final No Experience,

Preliminary No Experience0.043 0.1

Final No Experience,

Preliminary Experience 0.2 2.9

Final Experience,

Prelim No Experience –0.209 99.2

Final Experience,

Preliminary Experience 0.224 0.6

Prelim No Experience,

Prelim Experience –0.014 54.3

Table 3. SIMPER analysis comparing differences in survey results of experienced respondents before and after they had completed

the education prog ra m.

Initial Final

Behavioural Sign Mean Abundance Mean Abundance Mean Dissimilar ity Dissimilarity/SD Cumulative %

Erect S tance 0.10 0.90 6.41 1.18 12.71

Definition of Ethology 1.80 1.00 6.41 1.14 25.41

Ears Pricked 0.50 0.80 6.1 1.21 37.49

Cautious Behaviour 0.50 0.40 5.59 1.05 48.56

Animal Body Language 0.80 0.90 5.57 1.02 59.59

Alert Behaviour 0.30 0.10 5.29 0.97 70.07

Observing Behaviour 0.10 0.20 3.96 0.74 77.91

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

Table 4. SIMPER analysis comparing differences in survey results of inexperienced respondents before and after they had completed

the education prog ra m.

Initial Final

Mean Abundance Mean Abundance Mean Dissimilarity Dissimilarity/SD Cumulative%

Definition of Ethology 2.10 1.05 5.39 1.02 11.46

Animal Sound 0.48 0.58 5.34 1.03 22.81

Ears Pricked 0.56 0 .68 5.29 1.02 34.07

Erect S tance 0.53 0.60 5.21 1.03 45.12

Observing Behaviour 0.24 0.18 4.96 0.96 55.66

Alert Behaviour 0.30 0.14 3.28 0.68 62.65

Animal Body Language 0.89 0.91 3.23 0.72 69.52

Cautious Behaviour 0.53 0.46 3.23 0.69 76.38

iour.Other students stated they learnt factors, such as the

sounds animals make, can provide information as to the

behaviour animals are exhibiting, that animals commu-

nicate and different animals exhibit different behaviours.

3.8. Suggestions to Improve the Learning

Activities

Unfortunately one of the biggest problems that arose

during the learning activities session was the techno logy.

The university’s computers block some live streaming

videos such as those “posted” on YouTube. For this rea-

son, some of the videos and sounds were unable to be

played on the university computers. As this activity was

also an option to complete off-site, some student com-

puters were not set up to run some of the file types and

some student computers had blocks installed such as

pop-up blocks and others lacked the software to use

some of the files. As a result 17 students suggested tech-

nical difficulties needed improvement.

3.9. Other Comments

Only a few students (17) provided any other com-

ments regarding the learning activities. The students who

did comment, stated they “enjoyed the group work”, the

learning activities were “good” and the learning activi-

ties were “fun”. Only one student stated they d id not lik e

the group work

4. DISCUSSION

Overall, the study found that the students did benefit

from using the developed online learning activities. After

completion of the learning activities nearly all students

could define ethology and most had a good understand-

ing of the signs animals may exhibit and could articulate

the type of behaviour associated with the signs observed.

This type of preparation prior to engaging in hands-on

live animal practical sessions, as well as later in their

careers, will better equip students to avoid potentially

dangerous situations involving animals. Quite often stu-

dents with little or no background in handling animals

are subjected to live animal practicals immediately in

their undergraduate careers and although all safety and

care may be adhered to under occupational health and

safety guidelines, a student’s increased understanding of

behavioural cues prior to engag ing in these activities will

reduce their risk of injury or even death. In addition,

after all the students engaged in the learning activities,

there was no significant difference between the students

with qualif ications and /or perceived ethology experience

compared to students with no qualifications and no per-

ceived ethology experience.

Generally, the learning activities worked well, how-

ever a few students did comment on the difficulty of

accessing the pictures, sounds or video files. It appears

that some students had difficulties due to factors such as

the blocks on some software applications, or a lack of

plug-ins and specific software. Some students were able

to overcome these difficulties by changing settings or

downloading upgrades and plug-ins, whilst other stu-

dents, perhaps not as “tech savvy”, or motivated, did not,

and therefore did not ‘post’ messages on the discussion

board for that particular learning activity. Had marks

been allocated for these learning activities, it may have

encouraged some of the students who had difficulties

changing computer settings or downloading additional

software or plug-ins to communicate their concerns ear-

lier and encourage the few students who did not partici-

pate in some of the learning activities to participate.

Roberts and Dyer [8] similarl y found when investigatin g

the attitudes of students to the online learning environ-

ment, that students with a higher level of computer pro-

ficiency were likely to overcome any minor technical

difficulties and had positive attitudes towards the use of

the online environment. In future, there will need to be

further clarification as to the requirements needed if

students are going to access the learning activities from

their personal computer or other off-site location. No

students indicated they experienced difficulties using

vUWS.

Tennent and Hyland [11] found that students felt re-

warded by participating when marks were allocated and

may provide a further incentive for students to partici-

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

7373

pate or respond with deeper learning or more critical

thinking style responses. No marks were allocated for

engaging in the learning activities described in th is study,

as it was believed that the incentive to participate, en-

gage in hands-on practical sessions in live animal han-

dling, would be enough incentive to participate. In this

study, the reward of marks was therefore replaced by a

different type of reward. It therefore appears that the

reward used in this study aided student engagement in

the learning activities, regardless of a lack of marks be-

ing allocated. A similar motivation has been used previ-

ously with veterinary students as they likewise want to

engage in practical hands-on experiences with animals

[14].

It is well recognised that students are motivated by

assessment. This activity appears to be no different, as

although all the students participated in the learning ac-

tivities some students did not engage strongly and their

‘postings’ were limited. If a small assessment weighting

had been applied to the learning activities, it would

therefore be anticipated that a much larger proportion of

students would have engag ed in the learning activities at

a deeper level. However, the lack of assessment in this

study ensured that the students had control of their own

learning outcome, rather then the students focusing on

meeting a criterion that would have been associated with

an assessment task. If an assessment mark/grade was

included as part of the learning activities it may have

resulted in students taking less risk in their discussion

‘postings’, reduced the creativity in their responses, and

decreased their levels of ne w kn o wl ed ge con st ructi o n.

Further studies could investigate more thoroughly if

pet ownership is advantageous to first year students

when articulating the signs that animals’ exhibit that

allow us to define their behaviours. In this study, the

categories students chose for their pets varied and a

more reliable set of categories would be required in any

future study.

The differences between the abilities of male and fe-

male student to define animal behaviours was not inves-

tigated in this study as most of the students enrolled in

the agriculture and animal science degrees were female

students enrolling straight after finishing high school. A

large number of female students have also been observed

in students enrolled in animal science degrees at the

University of Adelaid e, SA, Australia [9,15] found there

was no variation in male or female student perceptions

of the use of technology in web-based learning, but some

difference in students of varying ages, and so it is

unlikely that the online environment had an effect on

either males or females. Other factors such as part-time

versus full-time enrolment and mature-age versus stu-

dents enrolling straight from school were likewise not

investigated to ensure anonymity, but could be incorpo-

rated into future studies.

The learning activities developed had the desired out-

come of increasing student knowledge of animal behav-

iour and were successful in terms of the development of

a social support network where students engaged in a

collaborative learning environment and constructed new

knowledge through group work activities. Most students

can now recognise the signs exhibited by animals and

can articulate what those signs translate into in terms of

a defined behaviour. The learning activities were there-

fore successful in increasing student awareness of ani-

mal behaviour and will therefore increase the safety of

animals, staff and students in future hands-on practical

sessions involving live animals. The learning activities

also have the potential to be used by community groups

as part of their training sessions prior to trainees engag-

ing in hands-on live animal handling such as animal

welfare and wildlife rescue organizations.

Although teaching aspects of animal husbandry and

handling to veterinary students in institutions worldwide

has been discussed in several recently published papers

(for example, [16-19]), little has been written about the

expanding requirements of animal handling skills for

animal science and zoology students. Given that animal

science students can follow a broad range of career op-

portunities, students require a broad knowledge and

animal handling skills for a range of companion, live-

stock, and native and exotic wildlife species. The inclu-

sion of the online resource into the first year animal sci-

ence unit will enhance student-learning ou tcomes related

to animal handling in the future.

At a time when both agricultural, animal science and

veterinary sectors have a growing need for personnel

trained in the understanding and objective analysis of a

growing range of ethical issues, the graduates emerging

from tertiary education are largely inexperienced in ap-

propriate animal handling techniques. Preparing students

for a vocation in these fields not only requires practical

experience, but also requires training in the theoretical

and historical ba si s behind behaviour.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by a Learning and Teaching

Action Plan grant from the University of Western Sydney awarded to

JO. This study was conducted with the approval of the University of

Western Sydney’s Animal Care and Ethics Committee and Human

Ethics Committee. Ms Ruth Donovan provided data entry support. Dr

Penny Trevor-Jones assisted in discussions regarding the conduct of

the project and Mr John Old provided feedback on an earlier version of

the manuscript.

REFERENCES

[1] Austin, H.E., Hyams, J.H. and Abbott, K.A. (2007)

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

Training in animal handling for veterinary students at

Charles Sturt University, Australia . Journal of Veterinary

Medical Education, 34, 566-575.

doi:10.3138/jvme.34.5.566

[2] Bawden, R.J., Macadam, R.D., Packham, R.J. and Valen-

tine, I. (1984) Systems thinking and practice in the edu-

cation of agriculturalists. Agricultural Systems, 13, 205-

225. doi:10.1016/0308-521X(84)90074-X

[3] Boyd, D. (1998) Introduction: making the move to peer

learning. In: Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. Eds.,

Peer Learning in Higher Education, Kogan Page, Lon-

don.

[4] Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. (2004)

The design of learning environments. In: Bransford, J.D.,

Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. Eds., How People Learn:

Brain, Mind, Experien ce, and School, National Academy

Press, New York, 131-154.

[5] Clarke K.R. and Warwick, R.M. (1994) Similarity-based

testing for community pattern: The 2-way layout with no

replication. Marine Biology, 118, 167-176.

doi:10.1007/BF00699231

[6] Clarke K.R. and Warwick, R.M. (2001) A further bio-

diversity index applicable to species lists: Variation in

taxonomic distinctness. Marine Ecological Progress Se-

ries, 216, 265-278. doi:10.3354/meps216265

[7] Cockram, M.S., Aitchison, K., Collie, D.D.S., Goodman,

G. and Murray, J. (2007) Animal-handling teaching at the

Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of

Edinburgh. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34,

554-560. doi:10.3138/jvme.34.5.554

[8] Field, J.G., Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.R. (1982) A

practical strategy for analysing multispecies distribution

patterns. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 8, 37-52.

doi:10.3354/meps008037

[9] Hynd, P.I. and Hazel, S.J. (2010) Animal science educa-

tion in Australia—Current situation and future needs. Are

current training and education programs appropriate for

the animal industry needs over the next 10 - 15 years?

Proceedings of the Australia Society of Animal Produc-

tion, 28, 24-31.

[10] Liang X. and Creasy, K. (2004) Classroom assessment in

web-based instructional environment: Instructors’ ex-

perience. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation.

http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=7

[11] Macadam, R.D. and Packham, R. G. (1989) A case study

in the use of soft systems methodology: Restructuring an

academic organisation to facilitate the education of sys-

tems agriculturalists. Agricultural Systems, 30, 351-367.

doi:10.1016/0308-521X(89)90004-8

[12] MacLeay, J.M. (2007) Large-animal handling at the Co-

lorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine.

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34, 550-553.

doi:10.3138/jvme.34.5.550

[13] Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger, J. L. (2005) Educating the

Net Generation. Educase—Transforming Education

Through Information Technologies.

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf

[14] Osman, M.E. (2005) Student’s reaction to WebCT: Im-

plications for designing on-line learning environments.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 32, 353-

362.

[15] Parkinson, T.J., Gilling, M. and Suddaby, G.T. (2006)

Workload, study methods, and motivation of students

within a BVSc program. Journal of Veterinary Medical

Education, 33, 253-256. doi:10.3138/jvme.33.2.253

[16] Reiling, B.A., Marshall, T.T., Brendemuhl, J.H.,

McQuagge, J.A. and Umphrey, J.E. (2003) Experiential

learning in the animal sciences: Development of multis-

pecies large-animal management and production practi-

cum. Journal of Animal Science, 81, 3202-3210.

[17] Roberts, T.S. (2004) Computer-supported collaborative

learning in Higher Education: An Introduction. In: Rob-

erts, T.S. Ed., Computer-supported collaborative learn-

ing in Higher Education, Cambridge University Press,

New York. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-408-8.ch001

[18] Stafford, K.J. and Erceg, V.H. (2007) Teaching animal

handling to veterinary students at Massey University,

New Zealand. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education,

34, 583-585. doi:10.3138/jvme.34.5.583

[19] Tennent B. and Hyland, P. (2005) The WebCT discussion

list and how it is perceived. Turkish Online Journal of

Distance Education , 29, 25-37. Accessed June 2009.

http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde15/index.htm

[20] van Note Chism, N. and Bickford, D.J. (2002) Improving

the environment for learning: An expanded agenda. New

Directions in Teaching and Learning, 92, 91-97.

doi:10.1002/tl.83

[21] Wilson, G., Thomson R. and Malfroy, J. (2007) Teach-

ing@UWS. University of Western Sy dney, Penrith.

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

7575

Appendix 1 Preliminary Student Survey

1. How would y ou define ethology?

2. Circle the type of experience you have had in ethology? You may circle more than one answer.

a. None b. Pets c. Work d. Qualifications e. Not sure

f. Other please specify: (such as life experiences, holidays, work experience)

If you answered (b) above, what pets do you currently have?

Reptiles Companion Aquatic Birds Farm

If you answered (b) above, what pets have you had in the past?

If you answered (c) above, what was the position you were employed in (eg. Veterinary nurse) and how many years

were your in that position?

If you answered (d) above, what qualifications do you have (eg. TAFE Cert IV) and what year did you gain this qualifi-

cation?

If you answered (f) above, what other experience do you have?

3. Please circle your perceived level of experience in ethology in years.

None

Less than 1yr

1-2

3-4

Lifetime

4. What obse rv at i onal sig ns c a n we use t o de t ermine the behaviour of an animal?

5. What signs do you observe in this picture?

6. What behaviour is being exhibited in this picture?

Appendix 2 Final Student Survey

1. How would y ou define ethology?

2. What obse rv at i onal sig ns c a n we use t o de t ermine the behaviour of an animal?

3. What signs do you observe in this picture?

4. What behaviour is being exhibited in this picture?

J. M. Old et al. / Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1 (2011) 65-76

5. What have you learnt from the Learning Activities?

6. Can you make any suggestions to improve the Learning Activ ities?

7. Any other comments you wish to add?