1. 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. Georges University of London, UK GEES Subject Centre 10th Anniversary Conference, Plymouth, UK 9 th July 2010

2. 2 The MORSE Project Mobilizing Remote Student Engagement Funded 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. 3 GEES students occupy multiple learning spaces…

4. 4 Fieldwork is an essential and integral component of GEES learning and teaching

5. 5 Challenge – to integrate the experiences acquired in different geographical spaces

6. 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. 7 Mobile technologies provide the opportunity to blend learning spaces live, in real time, synchronous learning

8. 8 Research Questions Does 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. 9 Methodology Mixed methods Students: questionnaires, focus groups and reflective journals Lecturers: focus groups and interviews Student mentors: focus groups and interviews Researchers observations

10. 10 Scenarios 3 dimensions: (1)different field-sites/student cohorts, (2)different intervention models, (3)different communication scenarios

11. 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. 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. 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. 14 Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University Isle of Wight Saint Helens, 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. 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. 16 Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University Percentage of students who (somewhat) agreed that SMS 20092010 was easy to use64.394.4 made the fieldtrip more enjoyable77.577.8 made me interact with my peers47.566.7 helped me to get to know my peers 40.061.1 will have a positive impact on my motivation to study 72.572.2

17. 17 Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University

18. 18 Results scenario A: students in field, lecturers at University Percentage of students who (somewhat) agreed that SMS 20092010 Would advise my lecturer to keep using sms 91.388.2 Would like other lecturers to use sms 89.188.2 Was a positive experience overall 93.282.3

19. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29 Quotes from Students Some lecturers dont 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 well have a blog, well have a forum, well have a this, well 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 dont have to use it but you might find it helpful in your future work

30. 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. 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.uks.downward@kingston.ac.uk Tim Linsey: t.linsey@kingston.ac.ukt.linsey@kingston.ac.uk Ann Ooms: a.ooms@sgul.kingston.ac.uka.ooms@sgul.kingston.ac.uk