CONTRASTING, COMPLEMENTARY LEARNING OUTCOMES OF IN-PERSON AND VIRTUAL FIELD-BASED GEOSCIENCE INSTRUCTION AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Students whose access to field geoscience learning is logistically or financially constrained can benefit from immersive, rich, and student-centered virtual-reality and augmented-reality field experiences. While no current digital modalities can supplant field-based learning, they may be the only means to enable students to study pedagogically powerful but inaccessible places on Earth and beyond. As leading producers of immersive virtual field trips (iVFTs), we study complementary advantages and disadvantages of iVFTs and in-person field trips (ipFTs).

Our mixed-methods study involved an intro historical-geology class (n = 84) mostly for non-majors and an advanced Southwest geology class (n = 39) serving mostly majors. Both represent the diversity of our urban Southwestern research university. For the same credit, students chose either an ipFT to the Trail of Time (ToT) at Grand Canyon (control group) or an online Grand Canyon iVFT (experimental group), in the same time interval. Learning outcomes for each group were identically drawn from elements of the ToT and assessed using pre/post concept sketching and inquiry exercises. Student attitudes and cognitive-load factors for both groups were assessed pre/post using the PANAS instrument (Watson et al., 1998) and with affective surveys.

Analysis of pre/post concept sketches indicated improved knowledge in both groups and both classes, but more so in the iVFT group. PANAS scores from the intro class showed the ipFT students having significantly stronger (p = .004) positive affect immediately prior to the experience than the iVFT students, possibly reflecting their excitement about the trip to come. Post-experience, the two groups were no longer significantly different, possibly due to the fatigue associated with a full-day ipFT.

Two lines of evidence suggest that the modalities were comparable in expected effectiveness. First, the information relevant for the concept sketch was specifically covered in both modalities. Second, coding using the ICAP Framework (Chi & Wylie, 2014) suggests that the modalities are qualitatively similar, with each being predominantly active or passive and rarely reaching the constructive or interactive levels. This leaves other factors, such as cognitive load, to explain the differential learning outcomes by modality.