1 learning support by mobile technologies on gees fieldwork dr stuart downward and dr timothy linsey...

1

Learning support by mobile technologies

on GEES fieldwork

Dr Stuart Downward and Dr Timothy Linsey

Kingston University, UK

Dr Ann Ooms

Kingston University and St. George’s University of London, UK

GEES Subject Centre 10th Anniversary Conference, Plymouth, UK9th July 2010

2

The MORSE ProjectMobilizing Remote Student EngagementFunded by JISC

Kingston University

De Montford University

GGEs fieldwork (School of Geography,

Geology and the Environment)

Student placements

(School of Health and Life Sciences)

Collaborative experiences

3

GEES students occupy multiple learning spaces…

4

Fieldwork is an essential and integral component of GEES learning and teaching

5

Challenge – to integrate the experiences acquired in different geographical spaces

6

Blending learning-spaces

The field The laboratory

Personal workplaceSeminar room

Online/VLE

Lecture theatre

Adapted from Downward et al, 2008.

Achieved with recorded information: guides, notebooks, podcasts.

Recorded information is asynchronous Students producing a Podcast in SE Spain

7

Mobile technologies provide the opportunity to blend learning spaces ‘live’, in real time, synchronous learning

8

Research QuestionsDoes the use of mobile technologies improve student fieldwork experiences in terms of

• Collaboration with peers?

• Communication with lecturers?

• Rapid feedback?

• Comprehension of the fieldwork phenomenon?

Does the staff use of mobile technologies improve the efficiency of fieldwork organization and implementation?

9

MethodologyMixed methods

Students: questionnaires , focus groups and reflective journals

Lecturers: focus groups and interviews

Student mentors: focus groups and interviews

Researcher’s observations

10

Scenarios3 dimensions:

(1)different field-sites/student cohorts,

(2)different intervention models,

(3)different communication scenarios

11

Isle of Wight (Oct 2008, 2009) Malta (Jun 2009, 2010)

Morocco (Jan 2009, 2010) Spain (April 2009, 2010) Dubai (Nov 2009)

1. Different field-sites, different cohorts and Levels, different learning objectives

12

2. Different intervention models

Non-interventional:

hands-off observation of students and staff using technology.

Semi-interventional:

guidance for students and lecturers to use technology.

Fully-interventional:

training and hands-on support provided in the use of technologies before and during the fieldwork. Monitoring guidance and training provided by GEES lecturers, MoRSE staff and student mentors.

13

3. Different communication scenarios

A: students in the field and lecturer/s at University

B: students at University and Lecturer in the field

C: students in the field and lecturers in the field

D: students in the field and other students in the field

E: students in the field and other students at university (not tested)

14

Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

Isle of Wight

Saint Helen’s, Isle of Wight

2008

Year 1 students

Non-interventional

Technology: Texttools

Students receive paper handout of instructions

2009

Year 1 students

Semi-interventional

Technology: Texttools

Students receive pre-exercise explanation by lecturer

15

Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

Lecturer

Not many questions from students

The use of texttools was perceived as moderate

Little difference was noticed between 2008 and 2009

Lessons learned

Preparation is essential – visit site prior to students

Have information available at finger tips

Lecturer used two laptops (one for texttools and one for internet browsing), maps, pictures

16

Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

Percentage of students who (somewhat) agreed that SMS

2009 2010

was easy to use 64.3 94.4

made the fieldtrip more enjoyable 77.5 77.8

made me interact with my peers 47.5 66.7

helped me to get to know my peers

40.0 61.1

will have a positive impact on my motivation to study

72.5 72.2

17

Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

18

Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

Percentage of students who (somewhat) agreed that SMS

2009 2010

Would advise my lecturer to keep using sms

91.3 88.2

Would like other lecturers to use sms

89.1 88.2

Was a positive experience overall

93.2 82.3

Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

• Several students reported not having received a response or not in a time

• One students asked if all questions and answers could be posted on BlackBoard

• “I would have liked to be cc-ed on all texts”• “I think it is too unpersonal. It is nicer if you

can just speak to a person but it might be a substitute if the person is definitely not available otherwise”

19

20

Results scenario B: students at University, lecturer in the field

Dubai, International Desalination Association World Congress

2009

Year 3 and MSc students on modules Water Resources Management

Semi-interventional

Lecturer used blog site to post notes while he was attending the conference

Students comment, invited to ask questions they have indirect access to the conference

Not strictly synchronous

21

Results scenario B: students at University, lecturer in the field

Findings

Only a small number of students engaged and got involved

Those who engaged responded very positive about the experience

Needs to be further investigated

22

Results scenario C: students in field, lecturer in the field

Spain

2009

Year 2*

Semi-interventional

2010

Year 2

Fully-interventional

Student mentors

Morocco

2009

Year 3

Non-interventional

2010

Year 3*

Semi-interventional

Malta

2009

Year 2

Semi-interventional

2010

Fully-interventional

Student mentors

* Comprises the same student cohorts as 2009

23

Results scenario C: students in field, lecturer in the field

• Internet access was used to: (from most to least)

– communicate with friends and family– help with field trip assignment– help with other assignments not related to this module– communicate with peers, lecturers

• Internet access was perceived as essential

24

Results scenario C: students in field, lecturer in the field

• SMS was not used much by students because they had face-to-face access to lectures and peers in the evenings

• “The SMS supported the interactions fully, however waiting for a reply can be tedious especially if the answer is needed to complete the work”

• “I like the fact that we were given the opportunity to learn to use different technologies in different situations and that I now can make decisions on which one to use based on my own experience”

25

Malta: students engaged in group project work

Golden Bay, Malta, 2010

2009

Year 2 students

Non-interventional

Technology: Mobile phones

2010

Year 2 students

Fully-interventional

Technology: Mobile phones, fieldwork blog.

In-field student mentor support

Students receive pre-exercise explanation by lecturer

Results scenario D: students in field, other students in the field

26

“The site gave us the opportunity to share pictures and videos which is important for those who did not have digital cameras or in case of a missed photo opportunity”

“The use of technologies supported the theoretical knowledge I already had”

“The use of technologies both supported and hindered my learning. Every day I felt I had to sue the cam to record activities, try to twitter about things where possible, and use texttools to communicate with lecturers or peers but using all the unfamiliar technologies together with GIS devices was not possible in short time”

Results scenario D: students in field, other students in the field

27

Conclusions

Students have mobile technologies and they feel comfortable bringing them along on field trips

Use of technology by students seemed to have increased since 2009

Students use technologies in daily life but not really to assist their learning or assist them with their assignments – they need to be guided

Students see the benefit and value the opportunities provided to them by the lecturers

Lecturers see the benefit of using technologies for field trips

The participation of mentors on the field trip is beneficial for all involved (students, lecturers and mentors)

28

Quotes from Students

“I think the technologies I used and the way I used them helped my learning; in conjunction with other research they will give a broader and fuller picture of an environment”

“I understand and can use the technologies now”

“I think technologies are good but avoid over use. Use your own physical senses and common sense to make observations to. However technologies can help build a more accurate picture.”

29

Quotes from Students

“Some lecturers don’t know much about technology and we are quite fortunate that Stuart was up-to-date with this kind of stuff. But then in a way I think some lecturers can overdose on the technology, they think oh we’ll have a blog, we’ll have a forum, we’ll have a this, we’ll have a that but what is the point if it is not used? But we are learning and I suppose they want to show us the ways we can use technologies in our future work, this is the idea, you don’t have to use it but you might find it helpful in your future work”

30

Reflections on Methodology• Researcher attended field trips

– Improved data collection (focus groups, interviews– Observations

• Mentors– Also assisted in data collection (run the focus groups)

• Reflective journal with flip cameras– Few students engaged but superficial reflection– Students did not like the video aspect – preferred just audio

• Challenging to motivate students to complete online questionnaires

• Time is limited during field trips for students to participate in focus groups/interviews – needs to be carefully planned

31

References

Downward, S.R., Livingstone, D., Lynch, K. and Mount, N (2008) Podcasting to support fieldwork teaching and learning in geography, environmental and earth sciences (GEES). Podcasting for Learning in Universities, Salmon, G and Edhirisinga, P (eds), Open University Press.

Contact information

Stuart Downward: s.downward@kingston.ac.uk

Tim Linsey: t.linsey@kingston.ac.uk

Ann Ooms: a.ooms@sgul.kingston.ac.uk