Aquaculture International

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 825–841 | Cite as

Evaluation on the use of e-learning tools to support teaching and learning in aquaculture and aquatic sciences education

  • Sónia SeixasEmail author
  • Clive Dove
  • Bernd Ueberschär
  • John Bostock


The study aimed to capture a snapshot of the status of educational means used in teaching and learning in the area of aquaculture, fisheries and aquatic resources management at European level, with specific consideration on the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and e-learning tools. To achieve this goal, an online survey was compiled and made available to teachers and students across Europe. In total, teachers from 31 institutions and students from 40 institutions participated in this survey. This paper presents the findings, considers trends and poses further questions for sector stakeholders to help in the development of future programmes and support. In summary, it can be concluded that few teachers have a comprehensive knowledge of the wide range of ICT tools available and can make use of e-learning tools with complete confidence. There is therefore a real and urgent need to “train the trainers” to use ICT in their teaching environments. From the students’ end, there is a strong desire to learn more about the application of e-learning tools and to use them in their learning process.


ICT e-Learning Teaching Education Web 2.0 Aquaculture Aquatic sciences b-Learning 



Information and communication technologies


Learning management systems


Personal digital assistant


Portable document format


World Wide Web



This study was conducted by members of workpackage 5 (J Bostock, J Dhont, C Dove, J Heikkinen, M Moulton, J Pirhonen, G Santos, S Seixas, B Ueberschaer) during phase II of the AQUA-TNET 2 network project (2008–2011). Parts of the results are reported in Jacobs et al. (2011). The aim of AQUA-TNET’s workpackage 5 was to promote the use of innovative teaching tools (digital tools and ICT in general) in aquaculture and aquatic sciences. The specific aim of this study was to evaluate the present use of a selection of e-learning tools and ICT among the members of the AQUA-TNET community.


  1. Aitchanov B, Satabaldiyev A, Latuta K (2013) Application of microlearning technique and Twitter for educational purposes. J Phys: Conf Ser 423:012044. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/423/1/012044 Google Scholar
  2. Bartsch RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41(1):77–86. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang YJ, Chang YS (2014) Assessing peer support and usability of blogging in hybrid learning environments. Interact Learn Environ 22(1):3–17. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.619889 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ebner M, Lienhardt C, Rohs M, Meyer I (2010) Microblogs in higher education—a chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Comput Educ 55(1):92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ernst D, Bolte J, Nath S (2000) AquaFarm: simulation and decision support for aquaculture facility design and management planning. Aquacult Eng 23:121–179. doi: 10.1016/S0144-8609(00)00045-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hernández JP, Martínez F, Torrecilla EM (2014) Assessment of the Wiki as an educational resource in e-learning. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación 44:97–111. doi: 10.12795/pixelbit.2014.i44.07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Isseks M (2011) How PowerPoint is killing education. Educ Leadersh 68(5):74–76Google Scholar
  8. Jacobs C, Bostock J, Dhont J, Moulton M, Ueberschaer B, Pirhonen J, Seixas S, Heikkinen J, Dove C, Santos G, Kaye R (2011) Innovation in teaching and learning: survey report. AQUA-TNET.
  9. Kirkwood A, Price L (2014) Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learn Media Technol 39(1):6–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lareki A, Martínez de Morentin J, Amenabar N (2010) Towards an efficient training of university faculty on ICTs. Comput Educ 54(2):491–497. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schoonenboom J (2014) Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Comput Educ 71:247–256. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. TACCLE (2013) Teachers’ aids on creating content for learning environments: the e-learning handbook for classroom teachers. GO! onderwijs van de Vlaamse gemeenschap, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  13. Zanten RV, Somogyi S, Curro G (2012) Purpose and preference in educational podcasting. Brit J Educ Technol 43(1):130–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01153.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zelick S (2013) The perception of web 2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in higher education: a case study. Creat Educ 4(7a2):53–93. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sónia Seixas
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Clive Dove
    • 3
  • Bernd Ueberschär
    • 4
  • John Bostock
    • 5
  1. 1.Universidade AbertaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Fundación INNOVAMARMadridSpain
  4. 4.Association for Marine Aquakulture LtDBüsumGermany
  5. 5.Institute of AquacultureUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations