This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 22 October 2014, At: 07:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Using Information Technologies for Interactive LearningBruce Mitchell & Maureen ReedPublished online: 16 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Bruce Mitchell & Maureen Reed (2001) Using Information Technologies for Interactive Learning, Journal ofGeography, 100:4, 145-153, DOI: 10.1080/00221340108978433

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221340108978433

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Using Information Technologies for Interactive Learning

Bruce Mitchell and Maureen Reed

ABSTRACT Experiences in designing, offering, and evaluating joint senior undergraduate course assignments in resource and envi- ronmental management on two different occasions, which connected students in two universities in British Columbia and Ontario, are documented. The shared assignments provided students with expe- rience in group work and consensual deci- sion making, and allowed them to use a mix of information technologies (e-mail, chat rooms, the Web, video conferencing). The undergraduate students rated very highly the experience with information technology but found some aspects of a collaborative learning approach to be chal- lenging. The course was less successful than had been anticipated in highlighting different regional perceptions and per- spectives regarding resource and environ- mental problems and solutions. Clarification of objectives and expecta- tions, more attention to allocation of time, and consideration of computer access and assistance would improve the effectiveness of the courses.

Key Words: mource and environmental man- agement, collaborative learning, information technologies

Bruce Mitchell is professor of geography and associate vice-president academic at the University of Waterloo. He has conducted research for over 30 years on integrated resource and environmental management. He received the Award for Scholarly Distinction in Geography from the Canadian Association of Geographers in 1994 and the Distinguished Teacher Award from the University of Waterloo in 1996. Maureen Reed is an associ- ate professor of geography at the University of Saskatchewan. At the time of the classes described here, she was employed at the University of British Columbia (UBC). She has undertaken research on community eco- nomic development and resource management throughout Canada. In 1992, she received a teaching award from the undergraduate stu- dents in the Department of Geography at UBC. Journal of Geography 100:145-153

In May 1998, Patricia Gober (1998, 2), president of the Association of American Geographers, wrote that geography “is awash with web-based curricu- lum materials,” and noted that a Virtual Geography Department funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) ”provides a wealth of innovative course materials; virtual field trips; a digital library of geography classics, including seminal books and articles; and a forum for discussing geographic ideas.” With the rising availability of the Internet, there is an increasing interest in how infor- mation technologies (ITS) can be used to develop learning skills and geographic knowledge. For example, O’Tuathail and McCormack (1998) used the Internet to examine issues associated with global conflict, and White and Simms (1993) focused on ITS to examine issues associated with waste facility siting. In parallel, studies have focused on different interpretations and methods of cooperative learning (e.g., Nordstrom 1996). Some incorporate new technologies in their dis- cussion, such as Svingen (1994), who reviewed various technologies with respect to their ability to facilitate cooperative learning. An issue of increasing importance is how ITS can be used to meet both substantive or content-related objectives as well as process-oriented learning objectives. For example, Adams (1998) explicitly considered how simulation software for urban geography could enhance geographic knowledge, computer literacy, and critical learning skills. With the exception of Adams’s article, however, writers have focused most attention on ITS and their relation to various pedagogical devices, but do not explore how these technologies and associated devices lead students to develop specific geographic perspectives.

using ITS as a research tool, as a means of collaborative learning, and as a means for improving computer literacy. We also give attention to the use of ITS in teaching geographic perspectives in relation to environmental and resource management. In particular, we consider the extent to which our use of ITS was or was not successful in identifying regional differences about environmental and resource management issues and strategies among undergraduate students in two different parts of Canada. In establishing our shared course assignments, we anticipated that our use of computer-assisted technologies and a non-com- petitive collaborative group learning model would enhance our overall pedagogi- cal objectives.

We based our assignments on a model of collaborative learning, which we define as a structured group experience in which students apply theories, concepts, and methods discussed in the classroom to a real world problem. The group work occurred through in-class learning and out-of-class reading of resources dedicated to brainstorming, Delphi methods, consensus-based deci- sion making, constructive critique, and appropriate computer communication protocols. We did not assume that the use of ITS would lead to a cooperative attitude among students. Rather, we recognized that students would have to acquire and demonstrate communication and group work skills in undertaking these assignments.

The motivation for using group, collaborative learning was a belief that

The purpose of our article is to consider the value and challenges in

02001 National Council for Geographic Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Interactive Learning 146

in a post-university world students will often work as a member of teams. Exposure to collaborative problem-solv- ing approaches in the classroom had both pedagogical and pragmatic purposes. Our assessment here is restricted to how logistical considerations associated with ITS enhanced or detracted from our learning objectives associated with learning to work in groups and in understanding environ- mental and resource management problems. In a subse- quent paper (Reed and Mitchell, 2001), we explore the the- ory and practice of collaborative learning in greater detail.

THE EXPERIENCE

a simulated real-world resource and environmental prob- lem-solving situation that required students to form inter- university teams (University of British Columbia [UBC] and University of Waterloo [UW]) to identify, set priorities for, and propose solutions to management problems that cut across jurisdictional boundaries. By requiring students in two different provinces to work together, we hoped that students would gain a deeper appreciation regarding differ- ent perspectives about resource and environmental man- agement including why conflicting regional views can exist, and how such views might be accommodated. Simulation was undertaken using computer-assisted media, including e-mail, the Internet and video conferencing. By the end of the course, the students completed an in-depth study of a resource and environmental management problem using computer-based technology for collaboration and commu- nication. Three aspects of the design - learning about resource and environmental management, learning about collaborative and interactive learning, learning about com- puter-based technologies - became the basis for our assess- ment of the success of these experiences.

In two sequential courses, the instructors designed

The Course Offiiings

course offerings during 1997. A common home page was created which students could access at either a UW or a UBC site. The home page included the course outline, information on the principles of group work and brain- storming, as well as links to Web sites which would be useful in the required research. No hard copy material regarding the course was provided to the students. The two courses at UBC and UW had unique features and course outlines, but the students had the same directions and information on the home page for the shared activities. The students at both UW and UBC were then given instructions through lectures and demonstrations on how to post papers on the home page. In each course a teach- ing assistant (TA) was assigned so that students could direct technical questions to an expert outside of class hours. The TA was also available by e-mail to the students.

that ten years had passed since the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development had pre- pared its report, Our Common Future (1987) and had popu-

Collaborative assignments were developed for two

In the first course, the students were reminded

larized the term sustainable development. Furthermore, the students were informed that the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and Environment Canada had begun to host meetings to obtain input into Canada’s position for the June 1997 Special Session in New York at which progress since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro during June 1992 was to be reviewed. The students were to take the role of a select panel to advise the Canadian federal cabinet on an appropriate Canadian “position.” Specifically, the student teams were directed to (1) deter- mine on which key environmental and resource issues Canada should be focusing, (2) evaluate Canada’s progress with regard to each of them, (3) outline an overall vision to guide national environmental and resource management policies, and (4) evaluate the challenges and opportunities that any group could be expected to encounter in making recommendations on these issues. Consequently, while the forum was international, students were directed to consid- er Canadian issues and solutions.

Twelve teams were established, with each team having members from both UBC and UW. To the extent possible, the instructors mixed the teams by gender, year of program (the students ranged from year 2 to year 4), department or school (since not all were geography stu- dents), and expertise regarding IT. Early in the term, each team prepared and then posted a paper of key Canadian environmental issues on the home page, which all students were expected to read. In addition, six ”news releases” sub- sequently appeared on the home page. The news releases covered topics ranging from treaty resolution between the Government of Canada and First Nations to the discovery of new toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. The news releases, although fictional, were based on real data. They were designed to alter the context in which the students had been working, emphasizing that resource and environ- mental management usually occurs in a rapidly changing and turbulent world.

which three priority resource and environmental issues were identified and explained. All of the second papers were posted on the home page. Students were to read the postings to prepare for an upcoming video conference to simulate a round-table discussion. During the video confer- ence, each team was expected to explain its choice of top issues briefly, and then seek consensus about priorities. Substantial background information about consensus- based decision making had been provided on the home page for the course, and the students were told that they should review that material to help prepare themselves for the video conference. A separate follow-up assignment was undertaken within each class setting.

software program, WEB-CT, that incorporated several dimensions of information technology such as bulletin boards, chat rooms, and e-mail monitoring, within the con- fines of each course and in a user-friendly manner. In addi- tion to instruction about WEB-CT, the students were given

Later, each team prepared a second paper, in

In the second offering, we were able to use a new

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

147 Mitchell and Reed

presentations and demonstrations regarding how to post material on the course home page - a task that was made much simpler through the new software. Students were required prepare a paper focused on one of 12 environmen- tal issues recognized during the June 1997 Special Session in New York in which they (1) identified priority issues, (2) reviewed various possible solutions, (3) outlined an imple- mentation strategy, and (4) developed a process to monitor progress with implementation. The third and fourth points for the papers deliberately required the students to take their thinking beyond ”problem scoping” and ”solution identification” to consider the often formidable obstacles associated with implementation, or moving plans into action.

course, we created intra-university work teams for the sec- ond course. The students were advised that their second assignment was to evaluate their counterpart’s paper and to indicate a grade for the paper along with the rationale for that grade. This grade formed 5 percent of the students’ total course grade. In parallel, the course instructors also evaluated the papers, as well as the second assignment assessments by each of the teams. Information about con- structive evaluation was placed on the course home page. In addition, in class time, instructors suggested that con- structive evaluative commentary comes, in part, from understanding others’ positions and perspectives. Written hand-outs were also provided for guidance. The teams were advised to consult with their counterparts in advance of

In response to term-end evaluations of the first

completing their first paper in order to debate issues, con- sider priorities and responses, and to determine the extent to which differences between them might be explained by differences in regional perspective. The posting of the stu- dent team evaluations concluded the shared part of the course work. The students at UBC and UW then had other activities which were specific to their course and were com- pleted during the balance of the term.

ASSESSING THE COURSE OFFERINGS The Basis of the Assessment

ent ways. First, the two course instructors were in regular contact by e-mail and telephone while the courses were being offered. In addition, between the two offerings, the instructors had face-to-face meetings to review the experi- ence with the first offering and to consider modifications for the second offering. Second, the teaching assistants were a valuable source of insight and comments both dur- ing and after the assignments were undertaken. Third, the undergraduate students in the courses anonymously evalu- ated the assignments at the mid-point of the courses and at term-end. Student ratings to key questions are provided in Table 1. In the following discussion, we first consider one of our original learning objectives of identifying regional differences in environmental and resource management. Next we consider how well ITS and collaborative approach- es worked to establish communications across different classroom and regional settings.

The two experiences were assessed in three differ-

Table 1. Summary of Student Evaluations of Assignments One and Two in the Second Course

Criterion Proportion Agreeing

Objectives and expectations explained adequately .72

Home page was valuable .78

Assignments provided real-world opportunity to apply theories .78

Gained new regional insights .52

Enabled participation through non-conventional ways .85

Instructor available and answered questions satisfactorily .94

Technical assistant was helpful .84

Computer skills matched course expectations .65

Assignments required more time .53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Interactive Learning 148

Learning about Environmental and Resource Problems: Considering Regional Perspectives

expose regional differences among students arose from a longstanding approach to teaching the geography of Canada. By the time students entered these courses, they were required to complete at least one course in the region- al geography of Canada and/or economic geography of Canada. The prevailing explanation of Canada’s regional development rests on the notion of an industrial heartland and resource-dependent hinterland. For more than a gener- ation of students, this heartland-hinterland framework has been used in standardized texts (e.g., McCann 1982). At a national scale, Southern Ontario, in which UW is located, represents part of the heartland, while British Columbia, where UBC is located, represents part of the resource hin- terland.

At a regional scale, our explanations of differences in perceptions of, and resolutions to, problems of resource exploitation, development and use have long been couched in these terms. Students in our courses were directed to these models through the choice of reading materials for each course (e.g., Reed 1995), in the selection of some of the environmental problems discussed (e.g., James Bay), and in debates about techniques for resolution. At a popu- lar level, regional differences have also permeated national politics, where environment and resource issues have been inextricably and publicly bound into debates of regional and national identity, and federal-provincial rights and responsibilities. For example, issues associated with freight rates and the viability of prairie farming, maintaining marine fisheries on both the East and West Coasts, attempts to establish a national energy and a national water policy, federal and provincial efforts to provide endangered species legislation and wilderness protection, and federal-provincial responses to natural hazards and to expanded rights of First Nations have all met with strong expressions of regional identity by citizen’s groups and provincial politicians.

We were surprised then that the majority of stu- dents at UBC and UW reported that they did not gain sig- nificant new regional insights from their counterparts at the partner university. At least five reasons may explain this outcome. First, the course instructors concluded that they had not posed the overall question for the assign- ments specifically enough to draw out regional differences. Second, all the students at each university had not been born and lived entirely in the province in which they were studying. At each university, out-of-province students were registered in the courses. For example, one of the UBC stu- dents remarked, “I don’t feel that I was able to gain any more insights from working with a regionally based group than from the group of UBC students. The students within the University are almost as representative of the regional differences since they come from all over Canada.” We now recognize that other socioeconomic attributes such as age, gender, work experience and travel experience could be as

The notion that such a set of exercises would

or more important than place of birth or current residence in influencing individual perception about issues. Third, logistical constraints may also have inhibited discussion of regional differences. For example, some students believed that the tight time frame and the consequent relatively brief messages exchanged between teams did not allow any depth of regional differences to emerge. In the first course, UBC students were outnumbered 3 to 1 in most groups. A small number of students at UBC during the first course offering stated that they felt intimidated to challenge the viewpoints of their counterparts at UW when the latter represented a larger group and potentially a ”block opin- ion. Fourth, some students believed that, during the second course offering when there were matched teams at UBC and UW, students approached the group work in a compet- itive rather than a cooperative spirit, overshadowing attempts to attain regionally based insights. This problem is discussed in more detail in the following section. Fifth, from our understanding of how regional geography courses of Canada are taught, and from our own experiential knowledge of both provinces, we believed different region- al perspectives existed. However, we did not test to see if that belief was valid for the students in the two courses, and such validation would have been appropriate.

Setting Conditions for Collaborative Learning

tance of group work and were pleased to have the opportu- nity to work as a member of a team (Table 1). Students also recognized that there was value in a group approach, even if it sometimes resulted in more time being required for the team to meet to work on the assignment. As one student commented on the mid-term evaluation in the fall term 1997, ”I did put more time and effort into the first two assignments only because of the extra time given to group meetings. But it was worth it to experience a good atmos- phere.” This experience, and the challenge to meet and communicate outside of the class times, reflected Nordstrom’s (1996) finding that in collaborative approaches students often have difficulty in coordinating their activi- ties outside the class.

The instructors became aware that a challenge in promoting group work among students who were working with distant partners was to provide consistent instructions to their students, especially when a question arose during a class and an immediate response was necessary. It became clear that sometimes advice or instructions were not identi- cal, leading to confusion for the students who were com- paring ”notes” with their counterparts at the other univer- sity. This situation led to the course instructors appreciat- ing even more that they had to consult very frequently by telephone or e-mail and to alert each other about any sig- nificant new instructions provided during a class.

the students was having classmates at the other partner university evaluate their second papers during the second course - even though the mark represented only 5 percent

A majority of the students recognized the impor-

The biggest source of concern and unhappiness for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

149 Mitchell and Reed

of the final course grade and the instructor’s evaluations counted 20 percent toward the final grade. The instructors had thought that this approach would generate two bene- fits: (1) lead the counterpart teams at the two universities to consult carefully with each other to ensure that perspec- tives and arguments from each team reflected concerns in another region of the country, and (2) lead the students to think systematically and carefully about what attributes should be in a paper relative to different levels of quality. To a considerable extent, this component of the course motivated students to quite different behavior. Students seemed reluctant to share their thinking with their counter- part team members for fear that the other team’s members would “take“ their ideas. And, for a variety of reasons, the students did not always accept or respect the evaluations provided by their counterparts as being fair or balanced. As one student commented in the mid-term evaluation in the fall term 1997, ”I was suspect of the evaluation by the other student groups. Competition has a tendency to see marks lower than I would expect,” while another stated that the other students “marked unfairly.” These comments were especially disheartening for the instructors because the students were not even “competing” within the same course over the course grades. Neither separation by school nor coordination through technology provided the means to overcome this sense of competition. The instructors con- cluded that they needed to provide more specific guide- lines about expectations and marking to the students before they began work on the assignment which was to be graded by classmates. Nevertheless, guidelines had been provided, and perhaps this reaffirms Bruffee’s (1987) find- ings that students are very reluctant to act as adjudicating peers. One way to overcome this problem might have been for the instructors to grade the students’ evaluations of their counterpart team, rather than using the students’ evaluation as part of the final course grade.

On a very practical note, the instructors also real- ized that they had to be more attentive to the three-hour time difference when setting deadlines for posting assign- ments on the common home page. In the fall term 1997, the students at both universities were told that they were to have their assessments of their counterpart team’s paper posted by not later than 4:30 p.m. on a specified day. The UW students quickly pointed out that such an arrange- ment meant that, because of the time difference, the BC students would have 3 hours to read the UW evaluations before the BC evaluations were posted! This resulted in a modification in the ‘posting time to ensure that the dead- lines at the two universities reflected the 3-hour time differ- ence and the students‘ concerns.

Value and Frustrations of Information Technologies

frustrations of using ITS in a problem-solving situation in which deadlines are imminent. The following comments illustrate what they believed was gained: (1) ”The computer use is great and very practical for future utility. Mainly

Students experienced the full range of benefits and

because I’ve never had reason to learn about creating home pages, etc., although I’ve searched and e-mailed a lot previ- ously”; (2) “Much library information is dated and doesn’t provide much insight into the current state of affairs in Canada with respect to our important issues. The Internet provides an easy access source of info, especially govern- ment documents”; (3) “The web-site, especially Sites of Interest, has been extremely useful. It saves large amounts of time that would have been spent searching for informa- tion”; (4) ”The Internet as a tool was great: very helpful and kept me using lab facilities which other courses this term did not do”; and (5) ”The Internet research encouraged was great, and long overdue in course work.”

Some students were more ambivalent, seeing both gains and problems through the use of ITS. For example, one student said, in reply to the question as to whether the use of the computer for searching the Internet and e-mail- ing had been beneficial for the assignment, “Yes and no. At times there is just too much info on the Web. E-mailing has been a hassle.” Another provided a similar comment when remarking “Yes and no. Learning the ropes is great! But the time and location problem of cross-country e-mail- ing is sometimes a pain.” A small minority of students did not enjoy the use of IT at all. As one student expressed it, the IT component in the course “could be improved by get- ting rid of it. This is resource management, not Computer Science 100, damn it.”

From the viewpoint of the two instructors, several aspects emerged. The teams were created with a goal of ensuring a mix of computer expertise on every team. Where such a mix was realized, it was hoped that students with less experience would benefit from working with a student with more experience. However, in some instances the student with the most experience took over the task of posting the papers or making arrangements for chat rooms. Other team members then concentrated on research for the assignment, or in writing or editing the papers. Some stu- dents felt that an arrangement which assumed that more IT-oriented students would tutor students with less IT knowledge was burdensome as the more IT literate stu- dents had to spend time in “teaching“ others who were not so well versed. Others suggested that an arrangement which divided up tasks among team members often was an efficient allocation of team members’ time, as some stu- dents never learned how to post documents on the home page. On the other hand, for those few teams who had no member with previous experience in posting, they had to allocate significantly extra time to learn how to post. While this created some stress for a few team members, all who were in such a situation were pleased that, by the end of the course, they had developed the ability to complete a posting.

which some of the students previously had with e-mail, and therefore did not provide any guidelines on the home page regarding e-mail etiquette. However, lack of response by partners elsewhere was the most common complaint.

The instructors overestimated the experience

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Interactive Learning i5a

In addition, the three-hour time difference became a logsti- cal hurdle for some students. Some of the students got visi- bly annoyed when they did not get prompt replies, without giving any consideration to the fact that there was a time difference. This problem was exacerbated because, in the first course offering, at one of the universities the students did not have access to the geography computer laboratory in the evenings or on weekends, whereas at the other uni- versity the students had access to three laboratories 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Once the students realized that dif- ferent arrangements existed at the two universities, allowances were made for differences, but the instructors should have highlighted them to the students from the out- set.

PLANNING FOR THE NEXT COURSE The virtual communities we attempted to establish

were constrained by time, distance, physical resources, and computer literacy. All of these constraints imposed costs on both instructors and students. Here, logstical suggestions are made for future courses with regard to clarification of objectives and expectations, consideration of time alloca- tion, and access to computers and assistance. In addition, we consider how our own expectations about how geogra- phy is taught influenced the setting and evaluation of the ”success” of the course assignments.

Clarification of Objectives and Expectations

tion” was a representative comment received from one UBC student after the second course offering. A UW stu- dent reiterated this view when remarking that there was need for a “clearer course syllabus that provides more clari- ty as to where the course is going.“ Surprisingly, this kind of comment was more common after the second course offering than the first. This type of comment was made even though instructions had been posted at the beginning of the course, using a user-friendly software package. How is it that instructions were perceived by students as having not been provided when all students had access to the same instructions on the Web?

There was an expectation by the instructors that students would read the posted instructions and absorb them. However, given the inevitable differences in course delivery and our determination not to discuss the objec- tives in class lectures so that students would have to actual- ly read the Web-based materials, some real gaps and differ- ences in students‘ understanding emerged. Despite an explanation that this approach was a deliberate learning strategy, many students did not appreciate having to do the work themselves or did not take responsibility. For exam- ple, one student at UBC stated that “this class received excellent explanations, but our counterparts seemed to be in the dark,” while one from UW complained to the instructor that ”although the team members at UW knew what was required, our team member at UBC did not seem to understand what we were supposed to do.” According to

“Be sure both classes receive standardized instruc-

one student, ”The way the groups at UBC and UW approached the project suggests it may have been conflict- ual at either end.” This conflict may have had greater peda- gogcal value had it not also been a basis for concerns over grading. For example, one group member at UBC declared ”our grade was much lower in comparison to Waterloo. The ambiguity of the assignment made us work harder and receive a much lower mark.” On the same point, a UW stu- dent remarked that all the marking was fair except for ”the mark from the UBC group,” while another UW student commented with regard to the peer marking that ”I was suspect of the evaluation by the other student groups. Competition has a tendency to see marks lower than I would expect.”

university to judge the effort by students at the other uni- versity, the concerns about standardization of instruction pose important challenges for instructors. Students in the third year at the two universities are at the transition between having materials provided for them and showing more initiative on individual projects (as they are more inclined to do in their fourth year). In this light, the com- ments do suggest that simply posting materials on the Web is insufficient. Some students argued that an example of a quality report would be useful. An example could be post- ed, or prepared in a common power-point presentation. This could be prepared in advance to minimize a percep- tion (or reality) that instructors are assigning different materials. In addition, students need time and encourage- ment to review materials. Given the lop t ics of access (see below) and the requirements of collaboration, more empha- sis on getting started should be placed at the beginning of the course.

Notwithstanding the challenge for students at one

Consideration of Time Allocation

as though instructors and students ”hit the ground run- ning.” Start-up costs are high. In the first course offering, it took two weeks before all students had passwords on com- puting systems and often three weeks before effective e- mail communication was established. In a twelve-week course, this is a significant time for startup. In the second course offering, other circumstances required that the group work be undertaken in the first nine weeks. As a result, some students did not feel sufficiently prepared aca- demically to tackle the assignment. For example, one UBC student stated, ”I don’t get the connection between class material and the assignment, too early in the year to apply such concepts and theories to an early project,” and a UW student observed that ”Perhaps more time would be advan- tageous to properly go through the group work process. Especially because people did not really know each other and needed time to discover strengths and weaknesses.”

hindered by uneven access to computers, software and computer proficiency. Technical frustrations occurred. In the second course, several improvements were realized.

With both courses, from the start date, it seemed

Operating costs are also high. The first course was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

151 Mitchell and Reed

First, the software WEB-CT provided several improve- ments, provisions for posting were much simpler, and stu- dent access to the lab and to the Internet from home were also greater. Nonetheless, time was tight and we were required to extend reporting times. In addition, some stu- dents felt that the experience was very time consuming rel- ative to the lessons learned. For example, one stated, ”[I] ended up spending way too much time and this was not reflected in my grade.” Another student argued ”the only additional time put in was trying to contact and communi- cate with the UW! That was a great waste of time. Other than that, the project was quite enlightening.” This type of comment leads us to consider how access to one another might be improved.

Access to Computers, Access to Each Other

age WEBCT was used because it provided several positive features. As one student (who took the two courses) remarked, it was “very user friendly (much easier than last year’s). It was nice to have the chat rooms and bulletin boards so easy to access.” Other advantages from the per- spective of the students were that (1) the “the web page was well constructed, privacy was good and posting pages was easy“; (2) “great sources of material under site of inter- est’’; and (3) ”full of useful stuff for my other classes,” thereby creating a teaching resource where the (4) “web page was well done and fairly easy to follow - having it was an asset because it could be checked constantly.” For those who did make use of it, the home page was considered “useful and more efficient than handouts of paper.”

the software, uneven access to computer resources remained a problem for some students. Here, course instructors arranged for different combinations of dedicat- ed times in which the departmental computers would be available for their courses, teaching assistants and/or tech- nical staff to be available throughout the week, and access to alternative sites across campus and beyond at which stu- dents would be able to access the home page 24 hours per day.

In contrast to the problem of access to computers, which was a problem in the first course but significantly less so in the second course, the second course offering failed to resolve all the problems related to coordination/collaboration. For example, one UBC student complained that ”many of the UW students were uncoop- erative until the last minute,” while another stated we “could not coordinate meeting times with UW - many no shows.” Another suggested that we “make Waterloo stu- dents get together with the UBC students. We nearly had to threaten their lives to make them meet with us. Most UBC groups felt the same way.“ Some of the UW students had similar views of their counterparts at UBC, as reflected in comments such as ”there was lack of communication exhibited by UBC,” and the UBC students were “not very responsive.“

In the second course offering, the software pack-

However, despite the bells and whistles offered by

Neither course had been designed with a lab or tutorial component, with some time for instruction made available from within classroom ”lecture” time slots and some time outside it. Many of these issues might have been more readily resolved if a common hour per week could have been designated to the project. Ideally, if this could be established at the same “real” time (accounting for the three-hour time zone difference), then the complaints about not connecting could be resolved.

from having a teaching assistant for the assignments, and at one of the universities technical support staff were avail- able. The teaching assistants and technical staff were used as lab instructors, providing guidance on how to access the Web page, teaching students how to use the web browsing and editing tools and to assist in posting, and to provide guidance on research related to resource and environmen- tal management issues. In addition, they provided the instructors with insight about the availability of and access to the computers, and about the students who did and did not use the labs regularly, which helped the instructors to assess the inevitable ”technological” excuses when assign- ments were not completed on time. In addition, the teach- ing assistants and technical staff provided another avenue for student questions, allowing the instructors to focus on substantive matters. In all course evaluations, TAs and technical staff were rated very highly, indicating the need for this constant contact during such an assignment.

On a more positive note, both courses benefited

CONCLUSIONS

the use of information technologies to help understand real-world environmental and resource management prob- lems. Part of our learning objectives involved exploring the possible significance of regional differences and the role of collaborative approaches in studying such problems. The following discussion considers implications related to each of these themes.

attitudes exist towards environmental problems and prospects for resolution was only partially realized. Our findings are consistent with those of Archer et al. (1997) who also expected to find students in Nebraska, Texas, and Florida would have regionally different viewpoints on geopolitics but discovered that all three sets of students saw the issues through a very similar lens. This finding may suggest that different approaches in posing questions for the students are needed. Furthermore, it often takes two or three offerings of a course before a learning objec- tive is realized in the intended manner. Alternatively, given the dispersed origins of students and the global reach now afforded to students by the Internet, perhaps the expecta- tion of regional variations in student perceptions of envi- ronmental problems is an outdated one. Certainly this notion could be given more critical examination in the preparation, delivery and evaluation of future courses.

In the main body of the paper, we focused upon

The anticipated result that regional differences in

Several explanations for our findings of converging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Interactive Learning

rather than diverging regional perspectives can be identi- fied. First, the assumption that students had absorbed the heartland-hinterland framework in the teaching of Canadian regional geography should have been explicitly validated in our own class settings. Validation could have entailed some basic testing, teaching and possibly exposure to a common reading on this topic. Second, the exercises themselves could have been more carefully structured to encourage students to confront these issues. Such a restructuring may have required that students examine issues explicitly on a regional-provincial level before addressing each other across the country. To some extent, this latter approach was achieved in the second course offering as students from the two partner universities looked more locally for both examples of environmental problems and solutions. However, while their examples differed (e.g., air pollution), their explanations of the signif- icance and the necessary steps for resolution were remark- ably similar. This finding leads us to consider that within the environmental studies curriculum, students have been encouraged for some time to think globally about environ- mental problems. Thus, the tendency has been to relate local problems to global issues (e.g., timber harvesting to depletion of rainforests, air pollution to global warming) rather than to how they fit a regional political geography.

Our third and last realization, of course, is that both universities attract students from all over the country. Thus, there is no reason to assume that students have been raised in the provincial culture in which they are currently studying. Perhaps more pervasive is the realization that many students have grown up in an urbanized culture, in which values associated with urban lifestyles are rein- forced, perhaps implicitly. This concern was raised in a research project by one of the course instructors, who found that residents of forestry towns identified universi- ties in Vancouver and Victoria as sites for the uncritical (and sometimes hypocritical) support of a narrow range of pro-environmental perspectives. Similarly, students from rural places have sought out the course instructors to tell their stories of living their rural lifestyles and express their concerns about teaching in the environmental studies cur- riculum. This consideration suggests that there are differ- ences other than “region” that may be important in influ- encing perceptions of issues.

The above observations about the possible role of different regional perspectives is a reminder that course instructors need to test some of the assumptions underly- ing learning objectives. Such testing becomes even more important when it is realized that a ”generation gap” may exist between the instructors and students, resulting in dif- ferent beliefs and assumptions. Both of the instructors had lived for significant periods of time in British Columbia and Ontario, but their experiences of living in one of the two provinces occurred at an earlier time than for their students. What they had been exposed to regarding differ- ent regional perspectives during their times in those

152

provinces would not necessarily be the same experiences of the students in their courses.

As tools for encouraging interactive communica- tion and group learning across different classroom and regional settings, ITS provided mixed results. Students required close contact with both TAs and instructors throughout the courses in order to maintain the commit- ment to, and obtain ideas for, collaborative group work. The establishment of “electronic communities” brought a new set of interpersonal dynamics and approaches to group learning which often required immediate attention to ensure teams operated smoothly. While this paper has already documented the frustrations expressed by stu- dents, we also note that this effort also created costs for the instructors. First, the preparation of joint assignments and the associated Web pages required us to invoke the skills of collaboration and compromise in the preparation phas- es. As the students also discovered, working with each other is more time-consuming than working alone. Second, our communication skills were constantly tested as we were in e-mail communication at least once a day every day while the course was running. Third, by incorporating ITS, we were vulnerable to some student dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction was most noticeable in the second course offering, when we attempted to have the students complete the group work in the first nine weeks of the course. Fourth, the course evaluations, completed by the students, indicated a lower overall rating for the courses at both uni- versities than when the courses had been taught without the combined approach which incorporated ITS. Lower rat- ings were more prevalent among third year students (rather than fourth year). This suggests that there is an increased ability to take on responsibility for one’s learning as stu- dents progress into their final year. It may also highlight that in an era where teaching evaluations are increasingly important in promotion and tenure decisions, the introduc- tion of new technologies may (ironically perhaps) be most safely introduced by more established professors. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to experiment with different approaches to learning, even if it does mean that initially there might be some problems for the instruc- tors and more criticisms from the students.

Finally, the objective of having students use ITS in problem-solving situations was successful. A very large majority of students appreciated the opportunity to learn about and apply ITS in a specific problem-solving situation. ITS are relatively new tools in the corpus of aids available for teaching about environmental and resource manage- ment. Our experiences suggest students have uneven knowledge of, and access to, the Internet and its capabili- ties. As a resource for research about environmental prob- lems, students were able to gain a wealth of information from the Internet. For example, most government agencies dealing with environmental inventory, regulation, and poli- cy have sites on the Internet. Non-governmental agencies, as well, have made a wealth of data available. The chal-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4

153 Mitchell and Reed

lenges for students include access and navigating these sites and then adjudicating the authority of the informa- tion provided. These challenges were met with enthusiasm and sophistication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their appreciation for finan- cial support to the Learning Technologies Research Grants from the Teaching Resource and Continuing Education office at the University of Waterloo, as well as the ongoing interest of Gary Griffin and Tom Carey from that office, and from the Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund from the Faculty of Arts in the University of British Columbia. Bruce Mitchell also would like to express his appreciation to Trevor Bain and Marko Dumancic from the Mapping, Analysis and Design office in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo for support and assistance, as well as to Maureen O’Neill for her contributions as a teaching assistant. Maureen Reed would like to thank Nadine Schurmann and Lisa Kwan, who provided technical support, project evaluation, and academic advice to ourselves and our students in advance of, during, and after each course. A special thank you goes to Catherine Griffiths who provided technical, moral, and humorous support to students and faculty at both ends of the country for the duration of both course offerings. Finally, three anonymous reviewers and the journal editor served to sharpen the focus of the paper

REFERENCES

Adams, P. C. 1998. Teaching and learning with SimCity 2000, Journal of Geography 9747-55.

Archer, J.C., F. M. Shelley, and J. I. Leib. 1997. The perceived geopolitical importance of the countries of the world: An analytical and pedagogical investigation, Journal of Geography 96: 76-83.

Bruffee, K.A. 1987. The art of collaborative learning, Change, March/April:42-47.

Gober, P. 1998. President’s column: Distance learning and geography‘s soul, AAG Newsletter 33:l-2.

McCann, L. 1982. Heartland and Hinterland: A Geography of Canada. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall.

Nordstrom, K. F. 1996. Assessment of collaborative approaches to teaching an undergraduate environmental management course, Journal of Geography 95: 21 3-221.

O’Lear, S. 1996. Using electronic mail (e-mail) surveys for geographic research: lessons from a survey of Russian environmentalists, Professional Geographer 48:209-217.

O’Tuathail, G. O., and D. McCormack. 1998. Global conflicts on-line: Technoliteracy and developing an Internet-based conflict archive, Journal of Geography 971-11.

Reed, M. G. 1995. Implementing sustainable development in hinterland regions. In B. Mitchell, ed., Resource Management and Development: Addressing Conflict and Uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 130-152.

Reed, M.G., and Mitchell, B. 2001. Using Information Technologies for Collaborative Learning In Geography: A Case Study from Canada. Journal of Geography In Higher Education, in press.

Svingen, B. E. 1994. New technologies in the geography classroom, Journal of Geography 93:180-185.

White, K. L., and M. Simms. 1993. Geographic Information Systems as an education tool, Journal of Geography 92: 81-85.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

7:50

22

Oct

ober

201

4