Enhancing field research methods with mobile survey technology

Journal of Geography in Higher Education

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 288-298

  Glass, Michael R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

experiential learning; field research; gentrification frontier; Lawrenceville, Pittsburgh; mobile devices; survey methods

Indexed keywords

FIELD METHOD; GENTRIFICATION; LEARNING; MOBILE COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH METHOD; STUDENT; SURVEY METHOD;

PENNSYLVANIA; PITTSBURGH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84931574642     PISSN: 03098265     EISSN: 14661845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2015.1010144     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. P.Cloke,, I.Cook,, P.Crang,, M.Goodwin,, J.Painter,, & C.Philo, (2004). Practicing human geography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
2. S.Deitrick, (1999). The post industrial revitalization of Pittsburgh: Myths and evidence. Community Development Journal, 34, 4–12. doi:10.1093/cdj/34.1.4.
3. D.DeLyser,, & D.Sui, (2013). Crossing the qualitative-quantitative divide II: Inventive approaches to big data, mobile methods, and rhythmanalysis. Progress in Human Geography, 37, 293–305. doi:10.1177/0309132512444063.
4. B.Dorsey, (2001). Linking theories of service-learning and undergraduate geography education. Journal of Geography, 100, 124–132. doi:10.1080/00221340108978428.
5. G.Douglas, (2012). The edge of the island: Cultural ideology and neighbourhood identity at the gentrification frontier. Urban Studies, 49, 3579–3594. doi:10.1177/0042098012448549.
6. S.Elwood, (2004). Experiential learning, spatial practice, and critical urban geographies. Journal of Geography, 103, 55–63. doi:10.1080/00221340408978576.
7. K.Field,, & J.O'Brien, (2010). Cartoblography: Experiments in using and organising the spatial context of micro-blogging. Transactions in GIS, 14, 5–23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01210.x.
8. F.Fowler, (2002). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. D.France,, W.Whalley,, & A.Mauchline, (2013). Using mobile devices to enhance undergraduate field research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 34, 38–42.
10. M.Glass,, & R.Rose-Redwood, (2014). Performativity, politics, and the production of social space. New York, NY: Routledge.
11. B.Gradeck, (2012). Who moves to Lawrenceville and why? Pittsburgh Economic Quarterly, March, 1–5.
12. V.Gwiasda,, N.Taluc,, & S.Popkin, (1997). Data collection in dangerous neighborhoods: Lessons from a survey of public housing residents in chicago. Evaluation Review, 21, 77–93. doi:10.1177/0193841X9702100105.
13. C.Herrick, (2010). Lost in the field: Ensuring student learning in the ‘threatened’ geography fieldtrip. Area, 42, 108–116. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00892.x.
14. M.Hope, (2009). The importance of direct experience: A philosophical defence of fieldwork in human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 169–182. doi:10.1080/03098260802276698.
15. D.Kolb, (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Inglewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.
16. S.Lohr, (2010). Sampling: Design and analysis. Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
17. R.Lubove, (1994). Twentieth century Pittsburgh, Volume II: The post-steel era. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Pittsburgh Press.
18. A.Margaryan,, A.Littlejohn,, & G.Vojt, (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Computing Education, 56, 429–440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004.
19. A.Medzini,, H.Meisher-Tal,, & Y.Sneh, (2014). Use of mobile technologies as support tools for geography field trips. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 10.1080/10382046.2014.967514.
20. N.P.Morris,, L.Ramsay,, & V.Chauhan, (2012). Can a tablet device alter undergraduate science students' study behavior and use of technology? Advances in Physiology Education, 36, 97–107. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2011.
21. J.Moss, (2002). Power and the digital divide. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 159–165. doi:10.1023/A:1019983909305.
22. K.Nairn, (2005). The problems of utilizing “direct experience” in geography education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 293–309. doi:10.1080/03098260500130635.
23. M.Prensky, (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrats, part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.
24. G.Rose, (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 305–320. doi:10.1191/030913297673302122.
25. K.E.Welsh,, A.L.Mauchline,, J.R.Park,, W.B.Whalley,, & D.France, (2013). Enhancing fieldwork learning with technology: Practitioner's perspectives. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37, 399–415. doi:10.1080/03098265.2013.792042.
26. B.Woodcock,, A.Middleton,, & A.Nortcliffe, (2012). Considering the smartphone learner: Developing innovation to investigate the opportunities for students and their interest. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 1(1), 1–15. doi:10.7190/seej.v1i1.38.