Efl rgs kew
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•419 views
1. The document summarizes a survey of 92 practitioners on their perspectives and experiences using technology in fieldwork. 2. It finds that while technology use has increased since 2002, barriers like cost, time, and lack of skills still exist—and technology is used more before and after fieldwork than during. 3. Emerging mobile technologies like smartphones, netbooks and laptops are being used more during fieldwork. Apps are also being utilized. 4. Questions are raised about how to better advocate for technology use during fieldwork and encourage reluctant colleagues, as well as the role of student-owned devices.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Viewers also liked
Similar to Efl rgs kew
Similar to Efl rgs kew (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Efl rgs kew
- 1. Using technology in fieldwork: Practitioner’s perspectives and experiences. Dr Katharine WelshUniversity of Chester k.welsh@chester.ac.uk Prof. Derek France (University of Chester)Prof. Julian Park (University of Reading)Prof. Brian Whalley (University of Sheffield)Dr Alice Mauchline (University of Reading)
- 2. Website: http://www.enhancingfieldwork.org.uk Twitter: @fieldwork_ntf Aims To enhance fieldwork learning through use of technology Photo: W.B.Whalley Photo: W.B.Whalley
- 3. Rationale “only building upon the possibility opened up by digital technology can we ensure that education will triumph ” (Lord Putnam, Handheld Learning Conference, 2008) “digital wisdom and digital enhancement” (Prensky, 2009) 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’ 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)
- 5. To gather practitioner perspectives on using technology in fieldwork
- 6. To identify specific practice
- 7. Interested in how perspectives & technology had changed since Fletcher et al. 2007 (data collected in 2002)
- 8. Results n = 92
- 9. Technology use across a fieldtrip n = 92 0 = no usage, 5 = high usage
- 10. Technology use across a fieldtrip n = 92 0 = no usage, 5 = high usage
- 11. Technology use across a fieldtrip n = 92 0 = no usage, 5 = high usage
- 12. Technology use across a fieldtrip n = 92 0 = no usage, 5 = high usage
- 13. Median Scores Increase since 2002
- 14. Type of technology used 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
- 15. 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.
- 16. Why was this technology introduced? 1. Increase speed and volume of data collection 2. To enable students to begin analysis during field trip 3. Improve digital literacy of students
- 17. What are the barriers to using technology in fieldwork? Lack of time to implement new technology Cost of technology/limited resources Limited staff/student skills ( & reluctant colleagues)
- 18. Smartphones for GPS, mobile mapping & geotagging Augmented reality What technologies will be used in fieldwork in the next 5 years? Gigapan Photo-recognition for plant identification Social network sites as real-time data loggers
- 20. Use of technology in fieldwork has increased since 2002 pre, peri and post fieldwork.
- 21. Emergence of mobile technologies being used more during the fieldtrip e.g. Smartphones, netbooks, laptops
- 23. How can we encourage reluctant colleagues to bring in more technology to their fieldwork ?
- 24. Is technology integral to either the learning outcomes or the student technology skills? (or both?)
- 26. To collect and share a series of detailed case studies of good practice.
- 27. Continue trials of new technologies and evaluate their suitability for fieldwork (with focus remaining on pedagogy)
- 28. Website: http://www.enhancingfieldwork.org.uk Twitter: @fieldwork_ntf Questions?
Editor's Notes
- 3-year NTFS HE funded project Overall aim is to enhance fieldwork learning through the use of technology
- Aims of project: fieldwork is expensive in both time and money for departments. Need to ensure students are getting the most out of the time they spend in the field. Want to ensure fieldwork remains in the curricula of geography, earth, environmental and biosciences (and beyond). In terms of technology, Web 2.0 technologies such as social networks are a particular focus as they facilitate collaborative work, something which is often required on fieldwork. Aim of the project: to try to facilitate better student learning during fieldwork by using technology (both hardware and software). This may be through speeding up data collection to get larger datasets or to begin analysis of the data during the fieldwork, the latter in particular will hopefully engage students in the work and retain the momentum of work rather than students being disconnected and disengaged from fieldwork when they analyse the data “back at university”.
- READ PUTNAM QUOTE - Case for using technology across all stages of education and academia in all subjects.Prensky advocates “digital wisdom and digital enhancement” – with the idea that we can make gains by using technology more effectively. Read HEFCE - Using technology for technologies sake sometimes improves digital skills of students, but does not have any bearing on learning outcomes. It is important to ensure pedagogy is the driver for using the technology. The literature makes a case for using technology effectively, but we wanted to know if this is being put into practice and wanted to know if our survey results reflected the ideas in the literature. Our focus is specifically using technology in fieldwork rather than just classroom education.
- Aims of project: fieldwork is expensive in both time and money for departments. Need to ensure students are getting the most out of the time they spend in the field. Want to ensure fieldwork stays in the curricula of geography, earth, environmental and biosciences.Aim of the project: to try to facilitate better student learning during fieldwork by using technology (both hardware and software). Currently in the first phase of data collection: survey results presented here, other data collection is ongoing
- Gathered some basic information about fieldwork Total number of participants was 92 Over 60% were from Geography, 30% from Bioscience and the other 10% comprised of Earth Sciences and ‘other subjects’
- A little subjective as practitioners have varying ideas about what constitutes high-level technology but gives a broad picture of technology is used across fieldwork Pre-field trip, a mixed bag of responses, over half of those surveyed fall into the 3-5 category which indicates a moderate to high level of technology is used before the fieldwork By “In the field”, we mean actually physically out gathering data rather than back in a field centre. The general trend is skewed towards the lower categories and over half of those surveyed have answered 0-2 indicating that during data collection, technology tends not to be used so heavily. By “During the fieldtrip” we mean at a field centre, working in the evening/mornings etc. The data are now skewed the opposite way and seem to trend towards a high usage of technology – used a lot during the evening or sessions back at field centres By “Post-fieldwork” we mean the work that groups have to do when they return from their field class and before they submit their report The data trends towards a high usage of technologyPRE-FIELD: 30% HIGH USE (4&5)IN FIELD: OVER HALF (0,1,2) LOW USEDURING FIELD: MIXED BAG – 30% STATE HIGH USE, 40% STATE LOW/NO USEPOST FIELD: OVER HALF HIGH USE (4&5)
- A little subjective as practitioners have varying ideas about what constitutes high-level technology but gives a broad picture of technology is used across fieldwork Pre-field trip, a mixed bag of responses, over half of those surveyed fall into the 3-5 category which indicates a moderate to high level of technology is used before the fieldwork By “In the field”, we mean actually physically out gathering data rather than back in a field centre. The general trend is skewed towards the lower categories and over half of those surveyed have answered 0-2 indicating that during data collection, technology tends not to be used so heavily. By “During the fieldtrip” we mean at a field centre, working in the evening/mornings etc. The data are now skewed the opposite way and seem to trend towards a high usage of technology – used a lot during the evening or sessions back at field centres By “Post-fieldwork” we mean the work that groups have to do when they return from their field class and before they submit their report The data trends towards a high usage of technologyPRE-FIELD: 30% HIGH USE (4&5)IN FIELD: OVER HALF (0,1,2) LOW USEDURING FIELD: MIXED BAG – 30% STATE HIGH USE, 40% STATE LOW/NO USEPOST FIELD: OVER HALF HIGH USE (4&5)
- A little subjective as practitioners have varying ideas about what constitutes high-level technology but gives a broad picture of technology is used across fieldwork Pre-field trip, a mixed bag of responses, over half of those surveyed fall into the 3-5 category which indicates a moderate to high level of technology is used before the fieldwork By “In the field”, we mean actually physically out gathering data rather than back in a field centre. The general trend is skewed towards the lower categories and over half of those surveyed have answered 0-2 indicating that during data collection, technology tends not to be used so heavily. By “During the fieldtrip” we mean at a field centre, working in the evening/mornings etc. The data are now skewed the opposite way and seem to trend towards a high usage of technology – used a lot during the evening or sessions back at field centres By “Post-fieldwork” we mean the work that groups have to do when they return from their field class and before they submit their report The data trends towards a high usage of technologyPRE-FIELD: 30% HIGH USE (4&5)IN FIELD: OVER HALF (0,1,2) LOW USEDURING FIELD: MIXED BAG – 30% STATE HIGH USE, 40% STATE LOW/NO USEPOST FIELD: OVER HALF HIGH USE (4&5)
- A little subjective as practitioners have varying ideas about what constitutes high-level technology but gives a broad picture of technology is used across fieldwork Pre-field trip, a mixed bag of responses, over half of those surveyed fall into the 3-5 category which indicates a moderate to high level of technology is used before the fieldwork By “In the field”, we mean actually physically out gathering data rather than back in a field centre. The general trend is skewed towards the lower categories and over half of those surveyed have answered 0-2 indicating that during data collection, technology tends not to be used so heavily. By “During the fieldtrip” we mean at a field centre, working in the evening/mornings etc. The data are now skewed the opposite way and seem to trend towards a high usage of technology – used a lot during the evening or sessions back at field centres By “Post-fieldwork” we mean the work that groups have to do when they return from their field class and before they submit their report The data trends towards a high usage of technologyPRE-FIELD: 30% HIGH USE (4&5)IN FIELD: OVER HALF (0,1,2) LOW USEDURING FIELD: MIXED BAG – 30% STATE HIGH USE, 40% STATE LOW/NO USEPOST FIELD: OVER HALF HIGH USE (4&5)
- Fletcher calculated median scores (rounded to nearest whole number)We calculated the same, lumped “in the field” and “during fieldwork” together. Different people surveyed, but there is an increase in every category.
- In some more detail,Pre-fieldwork makes use of “everyday” technology such as e-mail, web browsing and Microsoft Office Tools. E-mail for communication between groups perhaps? Web browsing perhaps for researching topics before the fieldwork. In terms of social media, Facebook seems to be a popular social technology used before fieldwork, perhaps to co-ordinate work between groups?
- In the field sharp increase in netbook, laptop, and digital camera use – portable items such as netbook and smartphone ideal for capturing data in the field i.e. No bulky itemsTablet usage is very low at the moment but I would expect this to increase in the next year or two.
- Why was this technology introduced?Range of themes but majority stated because: INCREASED SPEED OF DATA COLLECTION BEGIN ANALYSIS DURING TRIP – TO KEEP STUDENTS ENGAGED/ENTHUSED IMPROVE DIGITAL LITERACY & ENHANCE EMPLOYABILITY
- Barriers are similar to those found by Fletcher et al. 2007, no progress has been made in changing view points on COST, RELUCTANT COLLEAGUES, LACK OF SKILLS
- Run through each of these and briefly explain any that may not be obvious
- Needs work.
- Needs work.
- Summarise our future work and mention the website and twitter and invite people to submit case studies. Follow up interviews = is the technology integral to learning outcomes or skills? Does the student/institution provide the technology – interviews will be more in depth.
- Summarise our future work and mention the website and twitter and invite people to submit case studies. Follow up interviews = is the technology integral to learning outcomes or skills? Does the student/institution provide the technology – interviews will be more in depth.