DOI: 10.7291/d12957
title: A comparative study between outcomes of an in-person vs. online introductory field course

description: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many standard approaches to STEM
 education. Particularly impacted were field courses, which rely on
 specific natural spaces often accessed through shared vehicles. As
 in-person field courses have been found to be particularly impactful for
 undergraduate student success in the sciences, we aimed to compare and
 understand what factors may have been lost or gained during the conversion
 of an introductory field course to an online format. Using a mixed methods
 approach comparing data from online and in-person field course offerings,
 we found that while community building was lost in the online format,
 online participants reported increased self-efficacy in research and
 observation skills and connection to their local space. The online field
 course additionally provided positive mental health breaks for students
 who described the time outside as a much-needed respite. We maintain that
 through intentional design, online field courses can provide participants
 with similar outcomes to in-person field courses.
description: Data for this study comes from three quarters of in-person
 instruction (Spring 2019, Fall 2019, and Winter 2020) and two-quarters of
 online instruction (Spring 2020 and Summer 2020). Data collected included
 reflective journal prompts, end of class focus groups, pre/post surveys,
 informal course evaluations, instructor interviews, and ethnographic case
 studies. Data was collected using a mixed-methods, case study approach.
 Each component of data collection had a set of questions that addressed
 different aspects of the course and field-based learning
 experiences. Qualitative Data:  The focus
 group questions included those pertaining to student motivations and
 aspirations and how field-based courses played a role in those goals. We
 also focused on the barriers that students may have experienced in taking
 field-based courses. To provide a nuanced perspective on online learning
 settings, we also conducted interviews with one of the two online
 instructors and the teaching assistant (TA) from the online quarters. The
 questions focused on how they felt the online setting affected learning
 outcomes and student-teacher interactions. Reflective journal prompts were
 collected online or in written journals from students. Questions aimed to
 better understand the impact of the field course experience on
 students. We conducted the case studies using ethnographic approaches
 including participant observation and field notes (Fall 2019=23 students
 observed; Summer 2020=15 students observed).  To
 analyze our data, we created a codebook looking for themes of community, a
 sense of belonging, connection to scientific skills, and identity. We also
 were interested in holistic experiences students may have had in the
 course, looking to descriptions of emotions felt by students. We coded as
 a team to ensure consistency. After the codebook was finalized, we used
 the qualitative software Dedoose to aid in our analysis of the journal
 entries, interviews, focus groups, and open-ended responses to the
 surveys. Quantitative Data: The pre-and post-course
 surveys (responses in-person pre=271, post=81; responses online pre = 33,
 post = 7) included Likert-scale questions aimed to capture motivation,
 self-efficacy, and community, and open-ended questions about the
 students' expectations for the course as well as their understanding
 of conservation and environmental stewardship (see Appendix Table 6). Each
 student was asked to rate their confidence on a 5‐point Likert scale
 (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree Nor Disagree,
 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree) for each of six questions: (a) I am
 familiar with the flora, fauna, and ecosystems of California; (b) I have
 strong experimental design skills; (c) I have strong oral presentation
 skills; (d) I know how to conduct field research projects from start to
 finish; (e) I am interested in pursuing a career in science; (f) I am
 interested in pursuing a graduate degree. The
 quantitative survey data was analyzed using a cross-sectional approach
 (i.e., mean of post-surveys minus mean of pre-surveys for all students,
 including those that only answered the pre-survey).