Theme 5: Technology 130 

The technology incorporated into the GEOPATH project played a large role in improving academic engagement for all participants (Section 4.3.2, Tools & Technology>Data Collection). The focus of this evaluation is not on the use of technology specifically, however there are several technology-related influences on engagement that are worthwhile to discuss. Students appreciated the adaptive capabilities of the tablets, which allowed for a range of options that improved accessibility such as voice-to-text, and the capability to finger-sketch rather than manipulating a stylus. The ability to make sketches on photos helped convey and clarify ideas and the ability to and share photos and videos with team mates promoted academic inclusion. By reviewing videos with team mates, the extra opportunity to engage with the field site enabled students to notice details about the field site that were not noticed when in the field.

131

The communication technology employed for synchronous remote collaboration did present a few challenges that may have influenced engagement. The increase in time spent on technical issues in the remote group compared to the group with direct access to the field site is likely due to the increased reliance on technology that remote participation requires. Students participating remotely were using a variety of apps on their digital devices to communicate with teammates, take notes, and document geologic information. Students directly participating were using only the data collection and note-taking apps. Additionally, the GEOPATH project was designed to test-run apps that had not been field tested yet, and some of the communication apps were more prone to technical issues, which also contributed to the increase in time spent on troubleshooting.

Previous projects have utilized video cameras as a means of sharing the field experience with remote participants (Stokes et al., 2012), but the distribution of wearable video cameras at an individual student level is relatively new. The ability to record a first-person view of their activities in the field with wearable cameras was highly valued by all participants for data collection (Section 4.3.2, Tools & Tech>Data Collection), as well as a means to include their remote teammates in the exploration of a field site (Section 4.3.2, Teams & Partners>Inclusion).

The high value that students placed on the technology also created an unexpected influence on academic motivation and attitude, as students interpreted the distribution of

technology as an indicator of the importance of the work being done at a given location (Section 4.3.2, Tools & Tech>Distribution of Technology). When the SWoD cohort were initially given priority in the use of the wearable cameras, it inadvertently sent the message that the locations being documented by the able students were more interesting or more important than the locations being documented by the students with disabilities. When the SWDs were not given

132

wearable cameras, the group took that to mean that the area they were documenting was of low value to the overall mapping project. The lesson here may be that when utilizing technology as a means of increasing inclusion, some thought must be given to the distribution of technological tools and how students might interpret that distribution as statement on the importance of the work being done.

One of the unexpected challenges for the students participating through remote collaboration was the volume of information coming in from the field. Videos and photos on their tablets from multiple apps, verbal descriptions and discussions over the radio, and physical rock samples delivered by faculty all required attention. Studies have shown that in highly immersive virtual learning environments, engagement can suffer when too many things vie for attention at once (Lin et al., 2011; Nelson & Erlandson, 2008), and video analysis shows that students working remotely did have difficulty managing the inflow of streaming video, photo and verbal information while also attempting to make their own notes and documentation. This challenge of information management has been touched on in other trials of remote

collaboration. Coughlan et al. (2011) observed students on both ends of the collaboration “information-filtering (p.94)” in deciding what to send to teammates during the remote collaboration in the OTIH project (see Section 2.8 in the Literature Review). During the synchronous exercise at Renvyle Point in this study, students in the field took a less measured approach to sharing information and as a result, remote team mates had to determine how to manage the influx of un-filtered photos, videos, rock samples, and radio conversations. Two of the remote teams adapted by utilizing the video cameras mounted in the vehicles in which they were working to document conversations and their own audio notes during the exercise. This

133

informal adaptation seemed to work well, but in future iterations of remote collaboration, some thought should be given to techniques that might streamline or improve this process.

One of the benefits to the send-it-all approach to data sharing in terms of engagement was that field students were not filtering information for the remote students. One of the educational challenges in participation through remote collaboration discussed in earlier trials is that the remote participants are entirely dependent on their field partners for selecting what to document and what data to send (Coughlan et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2010). While the flood of information was sometimes overwhelming, the un-edited perspective of the field site enabled remote students the opportunity to process the site in much the same way as they would with direct access, and actively collaborate with field partners in deciding what aspects to focus on for closer study and what data to collect. This was an especially useful approach for Team B, where the two students in the field were novices and one of the remote team mates was far more experienced.