Bringing Earth Observation to Schools with Digital Integrated Learning Environments

The digital integrated learning environments (ILEs) for earth observation described in this article are bringing the complex topic of earth observation into classrooms. They are intended to give pupils with no prior experience in remote sensing the opportunity to solve tasks with earth observation data by using the same means that professionals have at hand. These learning environments integrate remote sensing tools and background knowledge in a comprehensive e‐ learning environment. They are tailored for use in schools, whereby the curriculum typically does not include earth observation, teachers are generally not familiar with its concepts, and the technical infrastructure is still not quite ready for digital teaching resources. To make the learning environments applicable, the special demands and obstacles presented by a school environment have to be considered. These obstacles are used to derive the requirements for the use of satellite data in school classes and create classroom resources in terms of technology, didactics, and e‐ learning. The concept itself was developed ten years ago, and since, then multiple applications have been created and used in classes. Data from an online questionnaire focuses on the specific qualities of the learning modules, enabling us to assess whether the concept works, and where there is need for improvement. The results show that the learning environments are being used, and that they continue to open the minds of pupils and teachers alike to a new perspective on the earth.

[1]  J. Piaget The construction of reality in the child , 1954 .

[2]  H. Sluiter [Learning by doing]. , 1977, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[3]  A. Rienow,et al.  Tools and Learning Management Functions for a Competence-Oriented Integration of Remote Sensing in Classrooms , 2013 .

[4]  David Richard Moore,et al.  E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning , 2006 .

[5]  Svein Sjøberg,et al.  Constructivism and Learning , 2010 .

[6]  J. Tuovinen,et al.  A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples , 1999 .

[7]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[9]  Reinders Duit Zur Rolle der konstruktivistischen Sichtweise in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Lehr- und Lernforschung , 1995 .

[10]  Ton de Jong,et al.  The Guided Discovery Learning Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2014 .

[11]  Maria Fox,et al.  The Effects of the Integrated Learning Environment on Student Performance at the Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center , 2009 .

[12]  Clark Aldrich,et al.  Learning by Doing: A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-Learning and Other Educational Experiences , 2005 .

[13]  E. Terhart,et al.  Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics? , 2003 .

[14]  Kar-Tin Lee Teachers using an integrated learning environment to cater for individual learning differences in Hong Kong primary classrooms , 2000 .

[15]  R. Mayer Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. , 2004, The American psychologist.