Pictures and words: Data collection proposal to investigate the affordances of current experiential learning environments

Background: Experiential learning, traditionally conducted in on-campus laboratory venues, is the cornerstone of science and engineering education. The online delivery of engineering coursework endeavours to mimic this with remote and simulated laboratory experimentation. This paper describes the data collection process that was implemented to obtain data for the investigation of the affordances within existing face-to-face experiential learning environments. Purpose: The data collection process is free of participant bias and facilitates the collection of "repeatable" analysis by researcher(s) and/or any other expert(s) and/or interested parties. Design/Method: Following appropriate ethics approval, project team members at Swinburne University of Technology, Curtin University and Queensland University of Technology were asked to identify laboratory classes for inclusion in the data collection process. A number of fixed and wearable video cameras were used to record the participant activities during experimentation with both real and simulated equipment in a number of face-to-face venues. The collected data was de-identified and was analysed for identifiable student-student, student-demonstrator and student-equipment interactions. Results: An innovative tool, Studiocode (http://www.studiocodegroup.com), was used to identify kikan-shido and over-the-shoulder-learning/teaching events which occurred during the observed experiential learning. These findings can be used to identify venue affordances. Details of the results obtained from this process, as well as their interpretation to obtain affordances, will be disseminated at a Master Class which will be held at this conference (AAEE2014 Conference Wellington, New Zealand). Discussion: The use of video equipment ensured "repeatability" of both data collection and subsequent analyses. after an initial "break in" period, some participants became totally unaware of the presence of the video glasses and/or the fixed video camera and behaved as they would have otherwise. Conclusions: Venue affordances were reliably identified from the data that was collected. However, the video glasses used did not allow for real-time streaming of the recordings, resulting in some unusable clips. The use of Google Glasses, to collect data on student activities will be investigated in 2015.