Abstract
Virtual globe programs such as Google Earth replicate real-world experiential learning of spatial and geographic concepts by allowing students to navigate across our planet without ever leaving campus. However, empirical evidence for the learning value of these technological tools and the experience students gain by exploration assignments framed within them remains to be quantified and compared by student demographics. This study examines the impact of a Google Earth-based exploration assignment on conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses at a research university in the US Midwest using predominantly traditional college-age students from a range of majors. Using repeated-measures ANOVA and paired-samples t tests, we test the significance of the activity using pretest and posttest scores on a subset of items from the Geoscience Concept Inventory, and the interactive effects of student gender and ethnicity on student score improvement. Analyses show that learning from the Google Earth exploration activity is highly significant overall and for all but one of the concept inventory items. Furthermore, we find no significant interactive effects of class format, student gender, or student ethnicity on the magnitude of the score increases. These results provide strong support for the use of experiential learning in virtual globe environments for students in introductory geoscience and perhaps other disciplines for which direct observation of our planet’s surface is conceptually relevant.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allendoerfer, C., Wilson, D., Kim, M. J., & Burpee, E. (2014). Mapping beliefs about teaching to patterns of instruction within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(7), 758–771.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Wiley.
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405.
Baker, T. R., Battersby, S., Bednarz, S. W., Bodzin, A. M., Kolvoord, B., Moore, S., Sinton, D., & Uttal, D. (2014). A research agenda for geospatial technologies and learning. Journal of Geography, 114(3), 118–130.
Bartsch, R. A. (2013). Designing SoTL studies—part I: validity. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 136, 17–33.
Blenkinsop, T. G. (2012). Visualizing structural geology: From Excel to Google Earth. Computers & Geosciences, 45, 52–56.
Chasteen, S. V., Perkins, K. K., Beale, P. D., Pollock, S. J., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). A thoughtful approach to instruction: course transformation for the rest of us. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 24–30.
Chen, X., & Thomas, W. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in post-secondary education. NCES 2009-161. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 27–43.
Colaianne, B. A., & Powell, M. G. (2011). Developing transferrable geospatial skills in a liberal arts context. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59(2), 93–97.
D’Avanzo, C. (2013). Post-vision and change: do we know how to change? CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 373–382.
Dahl, J., Anderson, S., & Libarkin, J. (2005). Digging into earth science: alternative conceptions held by K-12 teachers. Journal of Science Education, 12, 65–68.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Weiman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.
Dressel, P. L., & Schmid, J. (1953). Some modifications of the multiple-choice item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13(4), 574–595.
Elkins, J. T., & Elkins, N. M. L. (2007). Teaching geology in the field: significant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(2), 126–132.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Gazit, E., Yair, Y., & Chen, D. (2005). Emerging Conceptual Understanding of Complex Astronomical Phenomena by Using a Virtual Solar System. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5-6), 459–470.
Goode, J. (2010). The digital identity divide: how technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513.
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455–1456.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.
Hsu, T. C., Moss, P. A., & Khampalikit, C. (1984). The merits of multiple-answer items as evaluated by using six scoring formulas. The Journal of Experimental Education, 52(3), 152–158.
Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic, A., III, Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 437–442.
Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 369–391.
Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: a cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 413, 53–76.
Kastens, K. A., Manduca, C. A., Cervato, C., Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L. S., Mogk, D. W., Spangler, T. C., Stillings, N. A., & Titus, S. (2009). How geoscientists think and learn. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 90(31), 265–266.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1993). Comparing the tortoise and the hare: gender differences and experience in dynamic spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science, 4(1), 35–40.
Libarkin, J. C. (2008). Concept inventories in higher education science. National Research Council Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Workshop 2, Washington, D.C., Oct. 13–14, 2008.
Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2005). Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 394–401.
Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2007). Development of the geoscience concept inventory. In Proceedings of the National STEM Assessment Conference, Washington, D.C., 148–158.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A metaanalysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498.
Lisle, R. J. (2006). Google Earth: a new geological resource. Geology Today, 22(1), 29–32.
Mills, R., Tomas, L., & Lewthwaite, B. (2016). Learning in Earth and space science: a review of conceptual change instructional approaches. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 767–790.
Monet, J., & Greene, T. (2012). Using Google Earth and satellite imagery to foster place-based teaching in an introductory physical Geology course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 60(1), 10–20.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.
Parker, J. D. (2011). Using Google Earth to teach the magnitude of deep time. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(5), 23–27.
Patterson, T. C. (2007). Google Earth as a (not just) geography education tool. Journal of Geography, 106(4), 145–152.
Petcovic, H. L., & Ruhf, R. J. (2008). Geoscience conceptual knowledge of preservice elementary teachers: results from the geoscience concept inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(3), 251–260.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington: Executive Office of the President.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14.
Schultz, R. B., Kerski, J. J., & Patterson, T. C. (2008). The use of virtual globes as a spatial teaching tool with suggestions for metadata standards. Journal of Geography, 107(1), 27–34.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sheppard, S. R., & Cizek, P. (2009). The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualisation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2102–2117.
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
Stanger-Hall, K. F. (2012). Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 294–306.
Steer, D. N., Knight, C. C., Owens, K. D., & McConnell, D. A. (2005). Challenging student ideas about earth’s interior structure using a model-based, conceptual change approach in a large class setting. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 415–421.
Supasorn, S. (2015). Grade 12 students’ conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 393–407.
Supasorn, S., & Promarak, V. (2015). Implementation of a 5E inquiry incorporated with analogy learning approach to enhance conceptual understanding of chemical reaction rate for grade 11 students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 121–132.
Titus, S., & Horsman, E. (2009). Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 242–254.
Ucar, S., & Trundle, K. (2011). Conducting a guided inquiry in science classes using authentic, archived, web-based data. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1571–1582.
Ucar, S., Trundle, K., & Krissek, L. (2011). Inquiry-based instruction with archived, online data: an intervention study with pre-service teachers. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 261–282.
Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: when, why and how. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57(2), 147–181.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250–270.
Whitmeyer, S. J. (Ed.) (2012). Google Earth and virtual visualizations in geoscience education and research (Vol. 492). Geological Society of America.
Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2010). Transforming science education at large research universities: a case study in progress. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(2), 6–14.
Acknowledgments
This manuscript benefited from input and suggestions from Preetham Burugupally, Michael Fried, Claire Gravelin, Andrea Greenhoot, Laurie Poklop, Blair Schneider, Shree Subramanian, Douglas Ward, and one anonymous reviewer. Analysis benefited from advice from Michael Fried. The authors are particularly grateful to the second anonymous reviewer who returned extensive comments that vastly improved the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bitting, K.S., McCartney, M.J., Denning, K.R. et al. Conceptual Learning Outcomes of Virtual Experiential Learning: Results of Google Earth Exploration in Introductory Geoscience Courses. Res Sci Educ 48, 533–548 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9577-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9577-z