Virtual Field Trip

Virtual Field Trip

Erin Shea, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Definitions and background

Virtual field trips (VFTs) are a collection of technology-based resources used together to give students the learning experiences gained from an actual field trip (Arrowsmith, Counihan & McGreevy, 2005). VFTs are used both as a supplement to field trips, as well as to provide an alternative when an actual field experience is not possible (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002). Virtual field trips may be comprised of images, animations, simulations, audio and video (Banister, Reinhart & Ross, 2010). They may also include live broadcasts from scientists or field-trip locations, webisodes and a variety of student interactive learning materials (Cassady, Kozlowski & Kornmann, 2008). Typically a VFT includes a variety of these materials used collectively to imitate the learning experiences that take place during a real field trip (Rasmasundaram, Grunwald, Mangeot, Comerford & Bliss, 2005). They allow a teacher to provide students with the sight and sound of a new environment without ever leaving the classroom. VFTs can be either teacher created or pre-made and purchased for classroom use (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002). There are currently very few of these virtual field trips created and available for school use (Poland, Baggot la Velle & Nichol, 2003), however, VFTs are already part of some schooling programs and their popularity is expected to grow (Spicer & Stratford, 2001).

Affordances

Virtual field trips alleviate logistical barriers such as cost restraints, location, or safety concerns, and make the entire world accessible to students (Cassady et al., 2008). VFTs are an asset to any classroom, as they allow students to interact with the world and experience new environments in a way not otherwise possible (Gillett, 2011). They can be used to supplement or enrich classroom instruction (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002) as they allow students to experience real-life situations and give them practical experience that surpasses information gained from a textbook (Jacobson, Militello & Bayeve, 2009). They provide access to experts, materials and environments that are simply unavailable in most classrooms (Cassady et al., 2008).

VFTs are engaging for students and have been found to increase student motivation and encourage further learning (Spicer & Stratford, 2001). Poland et al., (2003) found that University students would revisit VFTs and return to school to continue learning on their own time. Tutweiler, Lin and Chang (2013) concluded that students who participated in VFTs which were created to introduce local landmarks, were more likely to want to visit the site in person, to continue their learning.

Tuthill and Klemm (2002) concluded that students who participated in VFTs believed they had gained a deeper understanding of the content, as opposed to when exposed to a lecture of paper-based task. Students who experienced VFTs reported that they felt in control of their learning (Poland et al., 2003) and appreciated being allowed to work at their own pace, and revisit components of the VFT that they may have missed (Arrowsmith et al., 2005). Cassady et al., (2008) discerned that using a variety of resources provided optimal learning opportunities when students involved in all aspects of a multi-modal VFT scored higher on a test of knowledge about their field trip content, than students who participated in only part of the VFT.

Adedokun, Hetzel, Parker, Loizzo, Burgess and Robinson (2012) discovered that virtual field trips allowed elementary aged students to put a face to science and view a number of real scientists working in their fields. Viewing scientists in various environments impacted some students’ perceptions of scientists and created awareness that both men and women can be scientists (Adedokun et al., 2012). Similarly, VFTs allowed students to gain information directly from community professionals who are able to show the value of the course content, by placing it in a real-life context (Cox & Su, 2004).

Constraints

Kravcik, Specht and Terrenghi, (2004) found that hardware limitations and limited resources could pose challenges, as reliable technology is essential for VFTs to be successful. There are also concerns with the efficiency and simplicity of a VFT program (Kravcik, Specht & Terrenghi, 2004). Websites will often change or disappear, making web-based VFTs unpredictable, and difficult to manage (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002). Tutwiler at al., (2013) recognized that many different types of technology are required in order for VFTs to be effective, and that lack of resources can pose a problem, as all schools are not equipped to the same degree.

VFTs can be either pre-made and purchased or created by teachers themselves, but each come with their own limitations (Banister et al., 2010). VFTs are time consuming for teachers to create and also require some experience or expertise with technology; as a result teachers may require support or professional development opportunities, which are not always available (Banister et al., 2010). Alternatively, if VFTs are premade, the locations and information provided may not be authentic and meaningful to students (Stoddard, 2009). They address a broad audience, and important components such as vocabulary, content or reading level may not be appropriate for all learners (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002).

Students come with a wide range of technological abilities, and lack of understanding of technology could take away from the VFT experience, as students may experience difficulty navigating the system without support (Arrowsmith et al., 2005). Poland et al., (2003) concluded that it was difficult to create a VFT that suited all students, as some students in their study felt they had plenty of time to explore the VFT, while others felt they didn’t have enough. Bai and Lavin (2014) noticed varying levels of student engagement, and found that some students who were unfamiliar with the virtual environment and how to navigate it, lost interest in the VFT.

Spicer and Stratford, (2001) found that overall, students felt that VFTs were not a substitute for a “real” field trip. They cannot truly offer the multi-sensory learning experience that on-site field trips can offer (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002). Students recognized that although engaging, they are different from the “real thing” as they lack the hands-on approach that students enjoy (Poland et al., 2003).