Comparing Strategies for Presenting Concepts in Introductory Undergraduate Geography: Physical Models vs. Computer Visualization

Abstract

Two experiments investigating the benefit of computer-based applications in geography education are presented. The computer-based methods employ concepts of visualization, including animation and interactivity, to facilitate active learning. These computer-based methods are compared with physical (i.e. tangible) models, which themselves can be considered active learning tools. Thus, this report compares a pair of learning strategies using interactive external cognitive tools (one computer-based and one physical), rather than more typical studies which compare an approach using such interactive tools with an approach using more traditional lecture-based presentations. Results confirm existing findings that computer-based approaches are appealing to students but are not, by themselves, significantly beneficial in enabling understanding of complex concepts.

Keywords:

• Visualization
• animation
• map projections
• geomorphology
• lectureware
• GIS

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Lisa Young of GateWay Community College for allowing them to conduct part of the experiment in her course in Fall 2003. They also greatly appreciate the work of the editors and anonymous reviewers who all provided very constructive comments and suggestions.

Notes

¹ That is, non-interactive, apart from VCR controls such as stop, start and rewind

² This was probably the result of an instance when, during the physical model demonstration, the instructor ‘volunteered’ a student from the class who was sound asleep.

³ There was, of course, not the same amount of control over what materials the students used to study for the final, though neither the animations nor the physical model materials were made available to the students after the lecture presentation earlier in the semester.

⁴ The demographic/personal questions were recorded but not all of the variables collected were analyzed for this report.

⁵ The same caveat discussed in note 3 applies.