Computers & Geosciences 27 (2001) 895–897

Another Node On the interNet

Lawrie Phipps

Learning and Teaching Support Network, Genesis 3, Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York YO10 5DQ, UK1

Associate Editor: John C. Butler, Geosciences University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA, E-mail: jbutler@uh.edu

Reflections on virtual fieldwork

1. Introduction

This article stems from discussions with lecturers,educational developers and technologists and a pre-sentation given at the Geological Society of America

Summit 2000. The intention is to raise issues that willstart a dialogue about virtual fieldwork and where(perhaps) it should sit in the current learning and

teaching environment. It is prudent to identify what isdefined, in the context of this paper, as a virtual fieldcourse. Suthren (1998) points out that a virtual field

course (VFC) has been run in the ‘‘Introduction toGeology’’ module at Oxford Brooks for over 20 yearsalbeit a paper-based exercise with hands on samples.However, for the purpose of this paper, it is enough to

say that the focus is on ‘virtual’ as implied by the use ofcommunication and information technology (C&IT).

2. The importance of fieldwork

The use of C&IT in teaching and learning has received

a mixed press and issues of ‘‘labelling’’ (or in some casesbranding) these types of resource have already been thesubject of some debate. With the term virtual being

often seen as synonymous with replacement, academicsinvolved in fieldwork teaching have sometimes beenfiercely opposed to this form of development. Stainfieldet al. (2000) tried to clarify the position by using the

phrase ‘‘digital alternative representations of reality’’,however, this label cannot be applied to most of theVFCs available and is inaccurate when taken in light of

many of the various projects’ learning outcomes.Further, this description may actually serve to fuel the

‘‘replacement–enhancement’’ debate by using the term‘‘alternative’’. In addition, what is it we mean byfieldwork? In defining field learning, Lonergan and

Andreson (1988) state that it is ‘‘where supervisedlearning can take place via first-hand experience, outsideof the four-walls constraints of the classroom setting’’(p. 64). Therefore, we can broaden the meaning to

include, for example, aspects of laboratory work or, atthe extreme end of the definition, Suthren’s paper-basedand real samples virtual field course.

Much has been written on fieldwork especially in thebiological and ecological, environmental, earth andgeographical (both physical and human) sciences in

assessing the relative importance of fieldwork. Williamset al. (1999, p. 3) assert:‘‘. . . the content of campus-based lectures and

practicals seems to fade from students’ recollection all

too rapidly. Fieldwork, by contrast, is memorable; andparticularly so when it takes the form of residential fieldcourses. These offer an exceptionally intensive educa-

tional experience which often brings social as well asacademic benefits’’.Nevertheless, in spite of the immense educational

benefits (in terms of both discipline specific andtransferable skills) fieldwork is under threat due tomany factors. Whilst recognising the importance of

fieldwork, Ternan et al. (1999) point out:‘‘It is one of the paradoxes of higher education,

however, that as the educational benefits of fieldworkhave become still more prominent, so too have the

financial and logistical obstacles which increasinglythreaten to prevent or impede this form of teachingand learning’’.

Ford (1998) suggests that in the United Kingdom, it isthe financial aspects of providing fieldwork that haveresulted in the Higher Education Funding Council for

England (HEFCE), being ‘‘as concerned with economyas with quality of education’’, to fund projects whichaim to ‘‘replace some fieldwork with computer-based

E-mail address: lawrie.phipps@Itsn.ac.uk (L. Phipps).1http://www.Itsn.ac.uk

PII: S 0 0 9 8 - 3 0 0 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 6

materials’’. This approach does not suggest an agendafor the replacement of undergraduate fieldwork rather

that some fieldwork is less necessary and some skills canbe developed using computer-based materials.

3. The development of the ‘virtual’ field course

Kent et al. (1997) reviewed changes in the styles offieldwork in geography, identifying some of the keymilestones. These ranged from the ‘‘Cook’s Tour’’ or‘‘look-see’’ approach of the 1950s and 1960s (essentially

non-participatory or passive), through to the ‘‘problem-orientated’’ or ‘‘project-based’’ approach of the 1970s.The progression has been cumulative, with elements of

the ‘‘Cook’s Tour’’ still playing an important role, thedevelopment has been characterised in the main, as ashift from passive to participatory or from non-

interactive to interactive.This development of traditional field courses has

largely been echoed by virtual field courses. Originallywhat aspired to virtuality was merely a collection of text

and images made available by innovative academics inan electronic format. With the onset of the ‘InternetAge’ possibilities for more interaction and for more

delivery methods have increased. Currently variouscomputer packages aimed at reducing the programmingaspects of developing software (such as Aysemtrix

Toolbook, Illuminatus and Macromedia Authorware)are being used more and more by academics in creatingresources. These programmes enable developers with

limited programming skills to add greater interactivityto their learning materials. Many of these packages areable to deliver their end product via the Internet andtherefore, other materials can be linked into existing

information. Perhaps, inevitably learning and teachingdevelopments will mirror those currently being devel-oped in the field of Geographical Information Systems

(GIS) data acquisition, launching students into therealms of wearable computing and augmented reality(Pundt and Brinkkotter-Runde, 2000).

4. Why do we need virtual fieldwork?

The reasons for building a VFC can be many and asdiverse as the actual number of individual resourcesavailable, ranging from giving a student specific

experience of carrying out an ecological exercise to ageneral overview of a region. It may be fair to say thatall staff involved in VFC development strive to improve

the overall student learning experience, driven byvarious considerations including academic, administra-tive and financial. Although the provision of these

resources may well bring benefits, there can be no doubtthat in the initial stages of either development of a new

resource or the implementation of an existing resource acost will be incurred in both labour and finance.

However, the benefits, as well as impacting upon learningand teaching, can have other roles such as improving themanagement of a field course. It could be argued that the

provision of virtual field courses is a natural progressionin the increase in interactivity previously identified byKent et al. (1997), trying to engage students in anotherform of communication in what is to all intents and

purposes another environment. It may be in future that asthe Internet becomes more interactive, using Lonerganand Andreson’s (1988) fieldwork definition, students

spend time interacting and studying ‘‘cyberspace’’ as afield course in its own right!However, in terms of building VFCs, as we know them

at the moment it is worth considering various questions.

* Is the resource a new development or the embedding

of an existing package? If the resource is new, is thedevelopment expertise available? If the resources isbeing embedded are there site licensing or copyrightissues?

* What are the labour costs of creating and maintain-ing the resource? What are the financial costs ofcreating and maintaining the resource?

* Is the resource intended to replace or enhance a fieldexperience? If the resource is a ‘‘replacement’’ will itmeet all the existing learning outcomes? If the

resource is an enhancement will all students be ableto benefit? For example does the resource meetusability guidelines? Or do all students have access to

the resource? If the resource is an enhancement, howwill it be integrated into the curriculum? For exampleis there space in the timetable to introduce theresource to the students and do the fieldwork?

These are a few of the basic questions that should beasked at the outset of any project. One problem that has

been identified is the ‘‘not invented here syndrome’’,where academics from different institutions have beenreluctant to embed the developments of a ‘‘rival’’

institution. In the sphere of communication andinformation technology (C&IT) development, this mayhave been more prevalent than other provinces of

academia because of the relative youth of the field(perhaps less than a decade). In some cases, thediscipline-specific innovators of C&IT may have beenworking alone (or in small groups). Bates (ILTAC 2000)

used the term ‘‘Lone Ranger’’ to describe academics inisolation developing C&IT approaches to their teaching.When working in isolation or even in small groups it is

not always possible to step away from the project andfocus on learning outcomes and some of the other metaquestions which underpin the reasons for development.

In many examples, it would not be unkind to say thatsome VFCs have been technology driven rather starting

L. Phipps / Computers & Geosciences 27 (2001) 895–897896

with the learning outcomes and using the technology toachieve them.

5. The future of virtual fieldwork

The idea that virtual fieldwork as an enhancementtool for ‘‘real’’ fieldwork is becoming embedded in

departments and institutions, and more importantly theminds of academics involved with fieldwork. Examplesof good practice can be found at a myriad of web-sitesacross educational cyberspace. Increased interactivity

and widening access will no doubt accelerate the rate ofdevelopment beyond that which is already prophesised.One new area being developed at some universities is

the concept of providing a fieldwork experience forstudents who are unable to access the real field coursefor various reasons including disability, financial or, in

the case of some mature students, family commitments.This is a noble pursuit and worthy of the academic idealsfor which all involved in education should strive. But in

an educational climate of parity for all students, a VFCshould, in principle, contain the same learning experi-ences as that experienced by students in the field. Inproviding a comparable learning experience for disabled

students the same experience, in a climate of parity,must be offered to able students. In the United King-dom, it is common that students pay at least some of the

costs toward residential fieldwork and that theseresidential field courses often make up a single moduleof a degree programme. Students in the UK are under

increased financial pressure, and they operate within asystem (modules) that encourages ‘‘strategic’’ learningi.e. learn only what they need to get through a particularmodule or stage of the course. If virtual fieldwork offers

the same outcomes and is comparable with real field-work, at least in terms of learning objectives, then itshould be expected that students will opt for the VFC,

given the academic and financial pressures.For those involved in the teaching of fieldwork, the

development of virtual resources for the ideal of

providing a field experience for all must be temperedwith the knowledge that there is a ‘‘real’’ world outthere. And for students to truly become familiar with the

concepts of our disciplines (be they geological, geogra-phical or even social) we must place an emphasis onfieldwork in the field. Students must experience thatwhich they study first hand.

Funding for learning and teaching development is avaluable commodity in UK higher education. Therefore,

before developing field courses in cyberspace perhaps weshould revisit the reasons that attract students to thedisciplines. If a course offers fieldwork, rather than

finding a way of substituting it electronically fordisabled students, we should perhaps think about usingthe funding to break down the barriers which prevent adisabled student going ‘‘into’’ the field. For example,

identifying field sites that are accessible for students withmobility issues, equipping university transport withwheelchair access or providing a ‘‘helper’’ when in the

field. This approach enables both able and disabledstudents to experience fieldwork. Education for all is aright, in our disciplines we should acknowledge that

fieldwork is an essential part of that education andensure that we have ways of making it accessible to all inthe ‘‘field’’.

References

Bates, T., 2000. Thinking digitally, restructuring the teaching

environment for technological change. Keynote Speech,

Institute for Learning and Teaching Annual Conference

(ILTAC 2000), 27th June 2000.

Ford, C.E., 1998. Supporting fieldwork using the Internet.

Computers & Geosciences 24, 649–651.

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,

313–332.

Lonergan, N., Andreson, L.W., 1988. Field-based education:

some theoretical considerations. Higher Education Research

and Development 7, 63–77.

Pundt, H., Brinkkotter-Runde, K., 2000. Visualization of

spatial data for field GIS. Computers & Geosciences 26 (1),

51–56.

Stainfield, J., Fisher, P., Ford, B., Solem, M., 2000. Interna-

tional perspectives on virtual fieldwork. Symposium on

International Fieldwork. Journal of Geography in Higher

Education.

Suthren, R.J., 1998. Virtual Posters and Virtual Essays in

Geoscience Courses. Computers & Geosciences 24, 665–671.

Ternan, L., Chalkley, B., Elmes, A., 1999. New developments in

fieldwork. SEED Publications, Faculty of Science, University

of Plymouth.

Williams, C., Griffiths, J., Chalkley, B., 1999. Fieldwork in the

sciences. SEED Publications, Faculty of Science, University

of Plymouth.

L. Phipps / Computers & Geosciences 27 (2001) 895–897 897