Designing an Inquiry-based Fieldwork Project for Students Using Mobile Technology and Its Effects on Students’ Experience

Yıl 2020, , 14 - 39, 23.03.2020

Jongwon Lee

https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.637666

Öz

The objectives of this research are, first, to find mobile technology–informed ways of designing inquiry-based fieldwork, in support of students’ inquiry processes and, second, to evaluate how a technology-integrated fieldwork project can affect students’ knowledge and experience. In order to achieve these objectives, the study adopted a set of core design principles and guidelines for the creation of inquiry-based fieldwork projects, detailing tips and an example (i.e., the Yangdong Village Project) of these principles and guidelines’ application. In addition, this study used a questionnaire to determine the influence of the project on students’ understanding of the investigation area and their inquiry-related behaviors. It also analyzed conversation between students, to examine how students’ learning processes are supported in fieldwork through use of mobile technology. A total of 86 high school students (ages 17–18), from four schools located in the Seoul metropolitan area, participated in the project. The results of the analyses showed that participation in the project helped students become better informed about the area they investigated. While they were conducting the field tasks, they showed more inquiry-driven behaviors, such as being more active and adventurous, more talkative, and more responsible (88.7%). Technological support for the process of field inquiry was prominent in three situations: location identification, data capture, and monitoring. The functionalities of mobile technology that students used during the field inquiry would reflect not only the characteristics of the task, but also the types of mobile technology involved in the project.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Inquiry, Fieldwork, Mobile Technology, Inquiry-based Fieldwork, World Heritage Site

Destekleyen Kurum

The Ministery of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea

Proje Numarası

NRF-2016S1A5A2A01022933

Teşekkür

This work was supported by the Ministery of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5A2A01022933)

Kaynakça

• Bednarz, S. W., S. Heffron, and N. T. Huynh, N.T., (2013). A road map for 21st century geography education: Geography education research (A report from the Geography Education Research Committee of the Road Map for 21st Century Geography Education Project). Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
• Bermingham, A. (2016). Investigating the extent to which student-led inquiry is supported by fieldwork booklet design. Geographical Education, 29, 33-39.
• Chang, C-H., Chatterjeaa, K., Gohb, D. H-L., Thengb, Y. L., Limc, E. P., Sund, A., Razikinb, K., Kimb, T. N. Q., & Nguyenb, Q. N. (2012). Lessons from learner experiences in a field-based inquiry in geography using mobile devices. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 21(1), 41–58.
• Chatterjea, K. 2008. Virtual workplace for learning in Singapore. In P. Zemliansky & K. St Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and the new nature of business practices (pp. 301-316). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Chatterjea, K. 2012. Use of mobile devices for spatially- cognizant and collaborative fieldwork in geography. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 2(3), 303-325.
• Cliffe, A. D. (2017). A review of the benefits and drawbacks to virtual field guides in today’s Geoscience higher education environment. International Journal of Education Technology in Higher Education, 14, 28, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0066-x
• Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1-14.
• Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, K., & Robinson, G. (2007). Practitioner perspectives on the use of technology in fieldwork teaching. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 319-330.
• France, D., Whalley, W. B., Mauchline, A., Powell, V., Welsh, K., Lerczak, A., Park, J., & Bednarz, R., (2015). Enhancing fieldwork learning using mobile technologies, Cham: Springer.
• Fuller, I., Rawlinson, S., & Bevan, R. (2000). Evaluation of student learning experiences in physical geography fieldwork: Paddling or pedagogy? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 199-215.
• Gao, Y., Liu, T.-C., & Paas, F. (2016). Effects of mode of target task selection on learning about plants in a mobile learning environment: Effortful manual selection versus effortless QR-code selection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 694-704.
• Goh, D. H. Razikin, K., Lee, C. S., Lim, E. P., Chatterjea, K., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Evaluating the use of a mobile annotation system for geography education. The Electronic Library, 30(5), 589-607.
• Hedberg, J. G. (2014). Extending the pedagogy of mobility. Educational Media International, 51(3), 237-253.
• Herrick, C. (2010). Lost in the field: Ensuring student learning in the ‘threntened’ geography fieldtrip. AREA, 42(1), 108-116.
• Hope, M. (2009). The importance of direct experience: A philosophical defence of fieldwork in human geography, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 169-182.
• Hsu, T. Y., & Chen, C. M. (2010). A mobile learning module for high school fieldwork. Journal of Geography, 109(4), 141-149.
• Hupy J. P. (2011). Teaching geographic concepts through fieldwork and competition. Journal of Geography, 110(3), 131–135.
• Jarvis, C., Tate, N., Dickie, J., & Brown, G. (2016). Mobile learning in a human geography field course. Journal of Geography, 115(2), 61-71.
• Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G., (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings, Computers & Education, 61(1), 21-32.
• Jong, M. S., & Tsai, C. (2016). Understanding the concerns of teachers about leveraging mobile technology to facilitate outdoor social inquiry learning: The EduVenture experience. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 328-344.
• Kang, D., Kim, M., & Park, M. (2011). A settlement pattern and consciousness change of Yangdong village connected with institutionalization. The Journal of Korea Planners Association, 46(5), 93-111.
• Kent, M., Gilbertson, D. D., & Hunt, C. O. (1997). Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 313-332.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychology, 41(2), 75-86.
• Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2008). Environmental detectives – The development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Research Technology and Development, 56(2), 1042-1629.
• Kwan, T., & So, M. (2008). Environmental learning using a problem-based approach in the field: A case study of a Hong Kong school. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(2), 93-113.
• Lee, J. (2016). The roles and challenges of geography fieldwork for the 21st century skills. The Journal of the Korean Association of Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(1), 99-117.
• Lee, J., & Catling, S. (2016). What do geography textbook authors in England consider when they design content and select case studies? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(4), 342-256.
• Lee, J., Oh, S., & Choi, K. (2017). Students’ experiences with investigative fieldwork activity of coastal sand dunes. Journal of Korean Association of Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(2), 129-150.
• Lonergan, N., & Andresen, L. W. (1988). Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations. Higher Education Research and Development, 7(1), 63-77.
• Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B. H., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154-169.
• Marra, W. A., van de Grint, L., Alberti, K., & Karssenberg, D. (2017). Using GIS in an Earth Science field course for quantitative exploration, data management and digital mapping. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(2), 213-229.
• Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., & Horton, R. M. (2009). The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 299-321.
• McClain, L. R., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2016). Technology-mediated engagement with nature: Sensory and social engagement with the outdoors supported through an electronic trailguide. International Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 385-399.
• Medizini, A., Meishar-Tal, H. & Sneh, Y. (2015). Use of mobile technologies as support tools for geography field trips. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(1), 13-23.
• Oost, K., De Vries, B., & Van der Schee, J. (2011). Enquiry-driven fieldwork as a rich and powerful teaching strategy – school practices in secondary geography education in the Netherlands. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 20(4), 309-325.
• Parsons, D. (2014). The future of mobile learning and implications for education and training. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Perspectives on open and distance learning: Increasing access through mobile learning (pp. 217-229). Col, Athabasca University.
• Patten, B., Sa ́nches, I. A., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing collaborative, constructivist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers and Education, 46(3), 294-308.
• Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Reid, N. & Yang, M. J. (2002). The solving of problems in chemistry: The more open-ended problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(1), 83-98.
• Raath, S., & Golightly, A. (2017). Geography education students' experiences with a problem-based learning fieldwork activity. Journal of Geography, 116(5), 217-225.
• Roberts, M. (2013). Geography through enquiry: Approaches to teaching and learning in the secondary school, Sheffield, UK: The Geographical Association.
• Sadeh, I. & M. Zion. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831-848.
• Song, Y., Wong, L-H., & Looi, C-K. (2012). Fostering personalized learning in science inquiry supported by mobile technologies. Education Technology Research Development, 60, 679-701.
• Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M., & Ternier, S. (2018). A review of the types of mobile activities in mobile inquiry-based learning. Computers & Education, 118, 38-55.
• Sung, H-Y., Hwang, G-J., & Chang, Y-C. (2016). Development of a mobile learning system based on a collaborative problem-posing strategy. Interactive Learning Environment, 24(3), 456-471.
• Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-80.
• Tally, B., (2007). Digital technology and the end of social studies education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 35(2), 305-321,
• Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 1-3.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Interaction between learning and development, In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Webster, A., Beveridge, M., & Reed, M. (1996). Managing the literacy curriculum, London: Routledge.
• Welsh, K. E., Mauchline, A. L., Powell, V., France, D., Park, J. L., & Vhalley, W. D. (2015). Student perceptions of iPads as mobile learning devices for fieldwork. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(3), 450-469.
• Yang, J. C., & Lin, Y. L. (2010). Development and evaluation of an interactive mobile learning environment with shared display groupware. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 195-207.
• Yang, S. J. H. (2006). Context aware ubiquitous learning environments for peer-to-peer collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 188-201.