Flexible Personal Learning Environments to enhance
learning in fieldwork
W. Brian Whalley, University of Sheffield, UK – b.whalley@qub.ac.uk
Derek France, University of Chester, UK – d.france@chester.ac.uk
Julian R. Park, University of Reading, UK – j.r.park@reading.ac.uk
Katharine E. Walsh, University of Chester, UK – k.walsh@chester.ac.uk
David Favis-Mortlock, Oxford University, UK – david.favis-mortlock@ouce.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
In this paper we describe our rationale for bringing Personal Learning Environments
(PLEs) into fieldwork. We also report on some of our experiences in helping
students to develop their individual PLEs, merged, as necessary, in Group Learning
environments (GLEs). around fieldwork projects in geography, earth and
environmental and Biosciences. This development also introduces students to a
‘personal knowledge system’, which brings together information acquisition,
recording, storage, transfer and dissemination. The fieldwork may be in remote rural,
urban areas, laboratories or at home but is based around developing ‘emergent’
practices; problem-based projects designed to develop academic, transferable and
employability skills. We report on some of the technologies that we have found to be
effective as well as the associated pedagogical principles and practicalities.
.
Keywords:
Added later
1. Introduction
Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) are defined in Wikipedia as, ‘systems that
help learners take control of and manage their own learning’ and provide support so
that learners:\

set their own learning goals

manage their learning, both content and process

communicate with others in the process of learning
There is usually an implication that a PLE incorporates Web 2.0 technologies. Here
however, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in general are
assumed to be the basic environment for a PLE. We start with the idea of a student
(of whatever age or level of education) in a ‘learning space’. This space can be
manifest in several ways; geographical or contextual (Savin-Baden, 2007). One
location of importance to many students and researchers (but not discussed by
Savin-Baden) is that of fieldwork. Here we define fieldwork very broadly as any, ‘out
of office’ activity. We consider that fieldwork learning experiences and opportunities
for students can benefit in a number of ways and that ICT can often be helpful and
sometimes essential for this enhancement. This is not just because we can use
computers in the field but we use them because they can supplement and benefit
the research and educational processes. Data acquisition, recording and information
processing and knowledge dissemination are particularly important in science and
the social sciences; they are exemplified by the ‘knowledge hierarchy’ or pyramid
(Figure 1). Students need to move around in this knowledge space and the easier
this can be done the better. A PLE should include a flexible set of tools to
manipulate data, information and knowledge.
Figure 1. The knowledge hierarchy or pyramid (after Skyrme, 1999). This is
sometimes known as the DIKW pyramid (Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom). It
applies to fieldwork as well as office educational spaces (Figure 2).
Students accrue employability skills by working in a DIKW / ICT environment. They
can develop a ‘Personal Knowledge System’ to manage complex information flows
within ‘knowledge networking’ (Skyrme, 1999). The development of Personal
Learning Environments can thus incorporate hardware, software and personal
interaction and incorporate a personal knowledge system. In our view PLEs can be
tailored for a specific set of circumstances (or workflows). Hence, we refer to PLEs
in the plural to emphasize their adaptability for different workflows. A Group Learning
Environment (GLE) is the amalgamation of the PLEs of the team for a specific
activity. A GLE too is adaptable and can evolve according to circumstances. Mobile
computing; ‘netbooks’, ‘tablets’, mobile ‘smartphones’ and personal digital Assistants
(PDAs) in various guises can be incorporated into a PLE as appropriate. In this
paper we explore the amalgamation and juxtaposition of some of these concepts
and practicalities with respect to student use in fieldwork. Figure 2 illustrates some of
these concepts embedded in educational space.
Figure 2. A generalized view of the domains in which ‘a’ PLE may exist or move.
Note that different PLEs can be configured for various situations and incorporate
appropriate workflows according to the task in hand.
2. Fieldwork
Several examinations of fieldwork, especially in geography, have been undertaken
(Fuller et al., 2006; Haigh and Gold, 1993; Higgitt, 1996; Kent et al., 1997; McEwen,
1996; Scott et al., 2006). In the main, these investigations suggest that fieldwork is
of great benefit to students. Even in an environment where students often have to
make substantial contributions for fieldwork travel and maintenance, they appreciate
the benefits in the short and long term, showing the significance of the affective
domain (Boyle et al. 2007). Fieldwork is likely to be a complex undertaking; in terms
of staff and student involvement, expectations of both parties and the costeffectiveness of the undertaking.
The advent of personal computers led to the ‘virtual field trip’ (Dykes et al., 1999).
Amongst other things, this was intended for use as training before a trip or for use
post-trip rather than as a substitute for it (Phipps, 2000). Yet such virtual ventures
foundered, mainly because they were too complex undertakings for the computers
then available. They are useful for planning fieldwork or showing the field location in
advance of actual field participation rather than as a surrogate for fieldwork itself
(Spicer and Stratford, 2001). They tended to be expensive and inflexible ‘Cook’s
Tours’; showing rather than involving students in experiential fieldwork. From a
pedagogic standpoint, the use of fieldwork as a means to aid and encompass
problem-solving approaches have been demonstrated (Bradbeer, 1996) and as an
element to promote lifelong-learning (Gerber, 2000). Virtual field trips are often still
seen as web pages but invariably consist of a few images and explanatory text.
These are guides rather than actual and experiential learning environments.
Despite the lack of success of the virtual field trip, ICT has produced notable
complements to fieldwork practice, but as enhancement rather than replacement.
Several authors (Fletcher et al., 2002; Ribchester and France, 2004; Warburton and
Higgitt, 1997) have shown how computers in advance preparation can be used with
advantage. In 1980 Gregory (1980) was exhorting geomorphologists involved in
student hydrological fieldwork, ‘If it moves, measure it’. In this area, from school
studies to professional hydrology, fieldwork is significant and requires a notebook
and pencil as part of a basic PLE. A computer actually in the field can be of
assistance in plotting data and checking measurements as it avoids duplication of
work in the evening and is more time-efficient. Gardner and Unwin (1986) were
amongst the first to advocate using computers in field classes, although this meant
manipulation of data in the evening, after collection, rather than actually in the field.
Yet, in 1986 in a remote valley in North Norway, one of us was using an Apple II
computer powered by a generator to process field data. It is only recently that
technology has allowed much student use of small computers (‘netbooks’) thereby
including ICT in a fieldwork environment (Figure 2). The computer thus becomes,
part of the PLE for the field exercise. Others, more recently have exploited
technology to assist education (Fletcher et al., 2007a; Fletcher et al., 2002, 2003,
2007b; Fuller et al., 2006).
3. Fieldwork benefits
Several examinations of fieldwork, especially in geography, have been undertaken
(Fuller et al., 2006; Haigh and Gold, 1993; Higgitt, 1996; Kent et al., 1997; McEwen,
1996; Scott et al., 2006). In the main, these investigations suggest that fieldwork is
of great benefit to students. Even in an environment where students often have to
pay substantial amounts for fieldwork travel and maintenance, they appreciate the
benefits in the short and long term, perhaps summed up by the paper stressing the
significance of the affective domain by Boyle et al. (2007). Fieldwork is likely to be a
complex undertaking; in terms of staff and student involvement, expectations of both
parties and the (probable) cost-effectiveness of the undertaking.
The advent of personal computers led to the ‘virtual field trip’ (Dykes et al., 1999).
Amongst other things, this was intended for use as training before a trip or for use
post-trip rather than as a substitute for it (Phipps, 2000). Yet such virtual ventures
foundered, mainly because they were too complex undertakings for the computers
then available. They were used for planning fieldwork or showing the field location in
advance of actual field participation rather than as a surrogate for fieldwork itself
(Spicer and Stratford, 2001). In essence, they were expensive and inflexible ‘Cook’s
Tours’; showing rather than involving, students in experiential fieldwork. From a
pedagogic standpoint, the use of fieldwork as a means to aid and encompass
problem solving approaches have been demonstrated (Bradbeer, 1996) and as an
element in promoting lifelong learning (Gerber, 2000). Virtual field trips are often still
seen as web pages but invariably consist of a few images and explanatory text.
These are guides rather than actual and experiential learning environments.
Despite the lack of success of the virtual field trip, ICT has produced notable
complements to fieldwork practice, but as enhancement rather than replacement.
Several authors (Fletcher et al., 2002; Ribchester and France, 2004; Warburton and
Higgitt, 1997) have shown how computers in advance preparation can be used with
advantage. In 1980 Gregory (1980) was exhorting geomorphologists involved in
student hydrological fieldwork, ‘If it moves, measure it’. In this area, from school
studies to professional hydrology, fieldwork is significant and requires a notebook
and pencil as part of a basic PLE. A computer actually in the field can be of
assistance in plotting data and checking measurements as it avoids duplication of
work in the evening and is more time-efficient. Gardner and Unwin (1986) were
amongst the first to advocate using computers in field classes, although this meant
manipulation of data in the evening, after collection, rather than actually in the field.
Yet, in 1986 in a remote valley in North Norway, one of us was using an Apple II
computer powered by a generator to process field data. It is only recently that
technology has allowed much student use of small computers (‘netbooks’) thereby
including ICT in a fieldwork environment (Figure 2). The computer thus becomes,
part of the PLE for the field exercise. More recently, others have exploited
technology to assist education (Fletcher et al., 2007a; Fletcher et al., 2002, 2003,
2007b; Fuller et al., 2006).
4. Experiential fieldwork and data acquisition
Experiential fieldwork, so important to student involvement, can use field
instrumentation (e.g. temperature recorders, cameras, microscopes, and weather
stations) that interface with computers via a Universal Serial Bus (USB) to enable
recording and examination in the field as well as laboratory.
Figure 5. Illustration of two workflows from field to laboratory incorporating various
aspects of data capture, synthesis and writing that students would need to
incorporate in their activities. Open Source or inexpensive applications could be
used for all of the components in these flows.
For example, annotating an image, rather than digging up plants or removing rocks,
enhances field identification and conservation. An electronic field guide of images
aids student identification in conjunction with a field flora so a netbook becomes an
e-book reader. iPhone applications for field identification of many organisms exist
and these are being extended to netbooks and tablets/iPads. ‘Smartphones’ usually
have some global positioning system (GPS) capability and some cameras and
netbooks can be fitted with or linked to GPS systems for ‘geotagging’. All, or most of,
the elements of field recording can be extended to what might normally be restricted
to home-based lab examination. By using netbooks, data can be recorded, sampling
can be checked and data run in models in the field. Hardware and software are
linked through PLEs, shared through GLEs and data transferred as necessary.
Research-led (based or facilitated) learning is not only a university promulgation but
has good pedagogical benefits (Healey, 2005; Healey and Roberts, 2004). For
example, recent research on fish in Guyana required field photography and image
transfer to the internet for experts world-wide to identify specimens shows the power
of computer-linked imagery (EarthSky, 2011). Sharing data in research has become,
if not commonplace, significant in the exploration of large data sets, eg. the Galaxy
Zoo project (www.galaxyzoo.org) using Hubble Space Telescope data. Data from
terrestrial remote sensing used in a student dissertation might be as much a part of
the investigation as working on astronomical data. For the student, data acquisition,
processing and knowledge acquisition (Figure 1) might even lead to publication in a
student-research journal (Waddington, 2008).
5. Social networking and the use of ‘apps’ to integrate PLEs with fieldwork
The development of communities of practice, such as just mentioned, are very much
a part of fieldwork investigations using teams. We are using and evaluating the
potential of a range of Web 2.0 technologies (hardware and software) to enhance
fieldwork learning using PLEs and GLEs. As our data with students indicates (Figure
3), there is an increasing use of ‘smartphones’ as a primary use of ‘mobiles’. This
mirrors the general trend towards smart[phone worldwide.
Figure 3. Projected uptake of ‘smartphones’ by 2 nd year geography students; QUB
and Chester; what they were using in 2009, Easter 2011 usage and projected use in
2012-13.
Students have a variety of ‘apps’ on these ranging from games to social networking
sites. Increasingly, they have been found using apps of particular relevance in
specific circumstances. Examples include a clinometer, panorama-stitching software
and apps that shows the solid geology at a given location. All these apps are
available on smartphones and, in general, find even greater applicability with larger
screens.
The mobile phone (within cellular coverage!) has meant that students can
communicate individually and share knowledge or data as part of a fieldwork project;
to check meetings or perhaps that data have been collected for example. Social
networks continue to have informal, eg Facebook, and more formal, eg instructional
clips on YouTube, usage in the field as anywhere else. Inexpensive still/video
cameras have been used for reporting on students own activities via podcasts (Nie,
2008) and other feedback devices (Lynch et al., 2008). The smartphone, with still
and video camera, now enables individuals or groups to record data, their own
performance or to show a colleague who could not be present. This sort of reporting,
perhaps backed by more-usual written forms, encourages students to engage more
effectively with the subject, specifically fieldwork methodology and enquiry
(Wakefield and France, 2010). Digital stories may be incorporated into assessment
(see Jenkins and Lonsdale, 2007; Wakefield and France, 2010) (Wakefield and
France, 2010) and practical advice on effective digital story telling can be found in
France and Wakefield, (in press) (France and Wakefield, in press). (Jenkins and
Lonsdale, 2007).
Although ‘storytelling’ may appear to be lightweight it is an important part of formal
and informal communication that is facilitated by social networking apps and allows
moving around the knowledge pyramid and developing a personal knowledge
system via a PLE. Mobile technologies and the use of apps provide information
transfer mechanisms that are not provided with ease in any other way. Examples
are barcodes or QR codes (Figure 4). Such an icon can be metadata for a wide
range of entities with a personal knowledge space or linked toi a report or images in
a panorama.
Figure 4. A QR code that can be passed around or
displayed on paper or delivered digitally according
to need and situation. Free apps are available for
both encoding and decoding these images that can
encapsulate URLs, georeferencing co-ordinates,
book cataloguing data or send an SMS text.
6. Integrating PLEs with fieldwork
Fieldwork, in its various manifestations, presents many problems that a student has
to adapt to and cope with. Not the least of these is the development of a personal
knowledge or information system. In this paper we combine these notions; the field
learning space, the personal knowledge system and PLE.
Following Knowles (1975) our definition for a PLE is wider than van Harmelen’s
(2006): ‘a PLE is a single user’s e-learning system that provides access to a variety
of learning resources, and that may provide access to learners and teachers who
use other PLEs and/or VLEs’. The diversity of interpretations of PLE can be seen in
the listing of diagrams at edtechpost (edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams).
At a basic level, but without discussing this further, we could consider a learning
space to be, ‘manifolds for exchanging metadata’, where metadata can be viewed
as adjuncts to knowledge; tacit, skills or the aspects of learning spaces discussed by
Savin Barden (2008). Thus, the personal knowledge networks and hierarchies can
be developed in the field or afterwards via appropriate learning space integration.
Students already know they will have to operate within spaces with apps and mobile
hardware as well as standard applications in word processing and spreadsheets.
7. Group Learning, GLEs and the Pedagogic basis for PLE usage
Fieldwork is frequently done in teams or groups, probably sharing data as well as
working up the report. Collaboration here might be done with ‘cloud based’
applications. There may be reasons of safety, sharing equipment or good
educational practice, for working as teams provides learning benefits (Burkill, 1997;
Haigh and Gold, 1993; Healey et al., 1996). We still expect students to use field
notebooks to record data, perhaps supplemented by smartphone or netbook. Here
however, for the present, the technology is less easy to employ than traditional
notebook and pencil, although digital recorders and hybrid devices (‘smartpens’)
provide non-traditional data entry methods. Our project is working on ways in which
netbooks / tablets / smartphones and associated apps and hardware affordances
can be integrated into diverse learning spaces of which fieldwork is just one. We
have suggested that the diversity of netbooks and smartphones and their apps
provides educational possibilities that were not conceivable even five years ago. We
have also examined the general nature of fieldwork learning spaces and suggested
that these may be linked or overlapped (Figure 2).
Since Traxler wrote the first chapter for the 2009 volume ‘Mobile Learning’
technology has moved rapidly – although his general categorisation is still sound
(Traxler, 2009). The next chapter in the book expounds the ‘Framework for the
Rational Analysis of Mobile Education’ (FRAME) model (Koole, 2009), summarised
in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The FRAME model, after Koole (2009) illustrating the potential overlap of
field corresponding to the Device, Learning and Social aspects of .
This scheme has the advantage of being developed on a good psychological basis,
involving learner prior knowledge, memory, context and transfer, discovery learning
and emotions and motivations (Koole, 2009, Table 2) – although we shall not pursue
these aspects further. Rather, we suggest that these three overlapping fields of,
Device (D), Learner Aspect (L) and Social Aspect (S) operating within a knowledge
space or Information Context. Mobile devices (including pencil and notebook as
much as computer touchscreens) can be matched with the necessary context of
student involvement and, eg social interactive learning. Group learning has
increasingly been viewed as a device for assisting learning as well as an
employability skill and reinforces the social aspects of PLE/GLE operation.
8. Conclusions
In 1986, Gardiner and Unwin concluded; ‘there are undoubtedly, problems to be
faced in taking computing facilities to a field class. However, it is our experience that
these are far outweighed by the educational benefits to be gained by students. The
provision of such facilities introduces an immediacy and realism into projects, which
serve to motivate students.’ We concur and realise that students with easy-to-use
mobile devices are even more integrated with flexible and active learning. This is an
on-going project, especially as technology becomes more compact, less batterydependent and, especially, less costly. So, as well as the data processing an
immediacy the flexibility of a PLE operating within a field of ‘Information context’ in a
knowledge hierarchy. Students are becoming more used to their mobility of
computing and, accordingly, the versatility of apps. PLEs provide the best way of
producing flexibility in learning according to the tasks and problems set and model
real-world situations.
9. Acknowledgements
We thank The Higher Education Academy of the UK for a National Teaching
Fellowship grant and our various students and colleagues involved with our field
trips.
10. References
References
Adams, D. N., 1992, The salmon of doubt, London, Macmillan, 284 p.:
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., and Wittrock, M. C., 2001, A Taxonomy for
Learning, Teaching, and Assessing — A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational Objective, Addison Wesley, Longman.
Boyle, A. P., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A.,
Wurthmann, S., and Conchie, S., 2007, Fieldwork is good: the student
perception and the affective domain: Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, v. 31, p. 299-317.
Bradbeer, J., 1996, Problem-based learning and fieldwork, a better method of
preparation: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 20, no. 1, p. 11-18.
Burkill, S., 1997, Student empowerment through group work: a case study: Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, v. 21, no. 1, p. 89-94.
Dykes, J., Moore, K., and Wood, J., 1999, Virtual environments for student fieldwork
using networked components: International Journal of GIS, v. 13, no. 4, p. 397-416.
EarthSky, 2011, How a researcher used Facebook to identify thousands of fish:
EarthSky, v. May 16, earthsky.org/human-world/how-researcher-usedfacebook-to-identify-thousands-of-fish.
Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, J., and Robinson, G., 2007a, Practiioner
persepectives o the use of technology in fieldfwork teaching: Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, v. 31, no. 2, p. 319-330.
Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, K., and Robinson, G., 2002, Fieldwork Education
and Technology: A GEES Perspective Planet, v. 4, p. 17-19.
Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, K., and Robinson, G., 2003, Technology before
Pedagogy?: Planet, Special Edition 5, p. 52-55.
Fletcher, S., France, D., Moore, K., and Robinson, G., 2007b, Putting technology
into fieldwork education: a pedagogic evaluation: Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, v. 31, no. 2, p. 319-330.
France, D., and Wakefield, K., in press,: Journal of Geography in Higher Education,,
in press, How to produce a Digtial Story: Journal of Geography in Higher
Education.
Fuller, I., Edmondson, S., France, D., Higgit, D., and Rattinen, I., 2006, International
perspectives on the effectiveness of Geography fieldwork for learning and
beyond: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 30, no. 1, p. 89-101.
Gardiner, V., and Unwin, D. J., 1986, Computers and the field class: Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, v. 10, no. 2, p. 169-179.
Gerber, R., 2000, The contribution of fieldwork to lifelong learning, in Gerber, R., and
Goh, K. C., eds., Fieldwork in geography: reflections, perspectives and
actions Dordrecht, Kluwer, p. 195-210.
Gregory, K., 1980, Practical fieldwork in hydrology. If it moves, measure it!: Teaching
Geography, v. April, p. 170-174.
Haigh, M., and Gold, J. R., 1993, The problems with fieldwork: a group-based
approach towards integrating fieldwork into the undergraduate geography
curriculum: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 17, no. 1, p. 21-32.
Healey, M., 2005, Linking Research and Teaching to Benefit Student Learning:
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 29, no. 2, p. 183-201.
Healey, M., Matthews, H., Livingstone, I., and Foster, I., 1996, Learning in small
groups in university geography courses: designing a core module around
group projects: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 20, no. 2, p.
167-180.
Healey, M., and Roberts, J., 2004, Engaging students in active learning: case
studies in geography, environment and related disciplines: Cheltenham,
Geography Discipline Network, University of Gloucestershire, p. 140.
Higgitt, M., 1996, Addressing the new agenda for fieldwork in higher education:
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 20, no. 3, p. 391-398.
Jenkins, M., and Lonsdale, J., 2007, Evaluating the effectiveness of digital
storytelling for student reflection, In ICT: Providing choices for learners and
learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore. Available at
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/jenkins.pdf (accessed
September 20th 2010).
Kent, M., Gilbertson, M., and Hunt, C. O., 1997, Fieldwork in geography teaching: a
critical review of the literature and approaches: Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, v. 21, no. 3, p. 313-332.
Knowles, M., 1975, Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers.,
Cambridge, Globe Fearon.
Koole, M. L., 2009, A model for frameing mobile learning, in Ally, M., ed., Mobile
Learning. Transforming the delivery of education and training: Edmonton,
Canada, AU Press, p. 25-47.
Lynch, K., Bednarz, B., Boxall, J., Chalmers, L., France, D., and Kesby, J., 2008, Elearning for Geography's Teaching and Learning Spaces: Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, v. 32, no. 1, p. 135-149.
Maskall, J., and Stokes, A., 2008, Designing effective fieldwork for the
Environmental and Natural Sciences: GEES Subject Centre, Learning and
Teaching Guide.
McEwen, L., 1996, Fieldwork in the undergraduate geography programme:
challenges and changes: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 20,
no. 3, p. 379-384.
Nie, M., 2008, Podcasts to support student learning in the GEES subjects: Planet, v.
20, p. 56-59.
Phipps, L., 2000, It's an IT field day, but students lose: Times Higher Education, v.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=153908&section
code=26.
QAA, 2010, Quality Assurance Agency, Honours degree benchmark statements.
Ribchester, C., and France, D., 2004, Producing Web Sites for Assessment: a case
study from a level 1 fieldwork module: Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, v. 28, p. 49-63.
Savin-Baden, M., 2007, Learning spaces: creating opportunities for knowledge
creation in academic life, Buckingham/Maidenhead, Open University Press.
McGraw Hill, 184 p.:
Scott, I., Fuller, I., and Gaskin, S., 2006, Life without Fieldwork: Some Lecturers'
Perceptions of Geography and Environmental Science Fieldwork: Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, v. 30, no. 1, p. 161-171.
Skyrme, D., 1999, Knowledge Networking: creating the collaborative enterprise,
Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Spicer, J., and Stratford, J., 2001, Virtual Field Trips - as good as the real thing?, in
Maskall, J., and Stokes, A., eds., Volume GEES Subject Centre, Learning
and Teaching Guide, Designing effective fieldwork for the Environmental and
Natural Sciences, p. 44-45.
Traxler, J., 2009, The current state of mobile learning, Mobile Learning.
Transforming the delivery of education and training: Edmonton, AU Press, p.
9-24.
Waddington, H., 2008, Geoverse: piloting a National e-journal of undergraduate
research in Geography: Planet, v. 20, p. 41-46.
Wakefield, K., and France, D., 2010, Bringing Digital Stories into Assessment:
Planet, no. 23, p. 63-67.
Warburton, J., and Higgitt, D., 1997, Improving the preparation for fieldwork with IT
Two examples from physical geoography: Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, v. 21, no. 3, p. 333-347.