efl rgs kew

Dr Katharine WelshUniversity of Chester

k.welsh@chester.ac.ukProf. Derek France (University of Chester)Prof. Julian Park (University of Reading)

Prof. Brian Whalley (University of Sheffield)Dr Alice Mauchline (University of Reading)

Using technology in fieldwork: Practitioner’s perspectives and experiences.

Website: http://www.enhancingfieldwork.org.ukTwitter: @fieldwork_ntf

To enhance fieldwork learning through use of technology

Photo: W.B.Whalley

Photo: W.B.Whalley

Aims

Rationale

HEFCE, UK (2009, p.6) states that, ‘focus should be on student learning rather than on developments in technology per se, enabling students to learn through, and be supported by technology’

“only building upon the possibility opened up by digital technology can we ensure that education will triumph ” (Lord Putnam, Handheld Learning Conference, 2008)

On using technology in field courses, practitioners have

reported “greater enthusiasm, greater engagement, deeper

preliminary learning and time saving benefits for students”

(Fletcher et al. 2007)

“digital wisdom and digital enhancement” (Prensky, 2009)

Aims of survey

• To gather information about quantity and nature of fieldwork

• To gather practitioner perspectives on using technology in fieldwork

• To identify specific practice• Interested in how perspectives & technology had changed since Fletcher et al. 2007 (data collected in 2002)

• International Practitioner Survey

Methodology

n = 92

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Geography Biosciences Other Earth Science

Subject

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Pre-Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

During the Fieldtrip

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

In the Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Post-Fieldwork

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0 = no usage, 5 = high usage

Technology use across a fieldtrip

n = 92

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Pre-Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

During the Fieldtrip

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

In the Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Post-Fieldwork

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0 = no usage, 5 = high usage

Technology use across a fieldtrip

n = 92

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Pre-Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

During the Fieldtrip

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

In the Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Post-Fieldwork

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0 = no usage, 5 = high usage

Technology use across a fieldtrip

n = 92

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Pre-Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

During the Fieldtrip

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

In the Field

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

Post-Fieldwork

Freq

uenc

y

Rating

0 = no usage, 5 = high usage

Technology use across a fieldtrip

n = 92

Median Scores

Fletcher et al. (2007) Enhancing Fieldwork Learning SurveyData from 2002 Data from 2011

Pre-field 1 3During fieldwork 2 3Post-fieldwork 3 4

Increase since 2002

Pre-fieldwork: e-mail, web browsing, Office tools, Facebook

In the field: e-mail, web browsing, Office tools, digital storytelling

During fieldwork: e-mail, web browsing, Office tools, podcasting, photo-sharing websites, Facebook

Post fieldwork: e-mail, web browsing, Office tools, podcasting, photo-sharing websites, Facebook,

video-sharing websites

Type of technology used

What hardware is used?

Pre-fieldwork: Desktop, laptop, mobile phone,

In the field: Netbook, laptop, Smartphone, Digital camera

During fieldwork: Laptop, Digital Camera, netbook, mobile phone

Post fieldwork: Desktop, laptop, digital camera

Tablets are not yet popular for use in fieldwork.

1. Increase speed and volume of data collection

2. To enable students to begin analysis during field trip

3. Improve digital literacy of students

Why was this technology introduced?

1. Lack of time to implement new technology2. Cost of technology/limited resources3. Limited staff/student skills ( & reluctant colleagues)

What are the barriers to using technology in fieldwork?

What technologies will be used in fieldworkin the next 5 years?

Social network sites as real-time data loggers

Smartphones for GPS, mobile mapping & geotagging

Photo-recognition for plant identification

Augmented reality

Gigapan

Conclusions

• Barriers remain the same as Fletcher et al. 2007: cost, time and lack of staff/student skills

• Use of technology in fieldwork has increased since 2002 pre, peri and post fieldwork.

• Emergence of mobile technologies being used more during the fieldtrip e.g. Smartphones, netbooks, laptops

• “App”-driven technologies are being used.

Questions to consider

• Why is technology low-use “in the field”? How can we advocate the use of more technology at this stage of the fieldwork?

• How can we encourage reluctant colleagues to bring in more technology to their fieldwork ?

• Is technology integral to either the learning outcomes or the student technology skills? (or both?)

• Will student-owned mobile devices be used to overcome resource/cost issues? What challenges will this bring?

• To follow up survey results with telephone interviews

• To collect and share a series of detailed case studies of good practice.

• Continue trials of new technologies and evaluate their suitability for fieldwork (with focus remaining on pedagogy)

Future Work

Website: http://www.enhancingfieldwork.org.ukTwitter: @fieldwork_ntf

Questions?