ABSTRACT
In response to the coronavirus pandemic in the fall of 2020, we created hybrid-virtual or fully virtual field trips to replace in-person field trips in two courses. For an introductory soil science course with 178 students enrolled, we used a narrative format supported by 360° ground-level and drone photos, newspaper articles, videos, websites, and landscape diagrams. After reading the narratives, the students took a quiz and then visited the sites (public parks near campus) on their own. For the advanced pedology course with seven students enrolled, a virtual trip replaced an all-day field trip that travels a 100-mile route from West Lafayette to Michigan City, IN. The virtual trip was created within the Soil Explorer platform and consists of >50 points of interest (POIs) overlayed on detailed soil maps. Each POI includes relevant information about the soils, agriculture, geology, geomorphology, or history at that point. At two POIs students examined four or five soils along two transects by filling in worksheets using the official series descriptions. Learning was facilitated by a study guide. Effectiveness was assessed by anonymous surveys. Students found the hybrid-virtual or fully virtual field trips informative, interesting, enjoyable, and appropriate given the pandemic. For the introductory class, 42% preferred a virtual field trip format, 39% preferred an in-person format, and 19% were neutral. In the advanced class there was with a clear preference for in-person field trips.
ABSTRACT
Abstract COVID-19 restrictions required a transition of our Soil Science and Forest Soils courses to an online format. A pre-transition survey found that ?10% of students enrolled in our courses lacked high-speed internet capable of streaming videos and/or computers compatible with the applications in our Learning Management System (LMS). To ensure that students with limited internet or technology were not left behind, we adopted a low-tech/bandwidth delivery (slides + transcript with LMS-delivered assessments) of all lectures and recitation activities. Students could also complete either a low-tech/bandwidth (lab slides + transcripts) or high-tech/bandwidth lab option (delivered via video). Upon completion, students were surveyed to assess preferences and perceptions which are vital in understanding how our approach impacted student motivation, engagement with the material, and overall course satisfaction. Despite 90% of the students having access to high-speed internet, ?45% of the students used the low-tech solutions either exclusively or half the time, even when high-tech options (such as video) were available. Overall, students felt the low-tech/bandwidth delivery of the lecture (?87%) and recitation (?76%) material was effective. Students (?74%) also reported that online delivery of the lab material effectively supported their learning and was an effective replacement for the in-lab learning experience. Students preferred in-person to online delivery (63% vs. 17%) with 20% undecided. Noting the flexibility and organization of the course, 69% of the students felt the online delivery of our courses was more effective than their other courses despite, or perhaps because of, the lack of high-tech delivery. Our experience demonstrates one approach to adapting an in-person course to a virtual environment that considers inequities in broadband and technology access. Despite being perceived as effective by our students, low-tech options were less preferred than in-person instruction suggesting that, while effective, it was not viewed as equivalent. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved