Virtual Field Trips

This article describes how virtual field trips (VFTs) can benefit teachers. There are two types of VFTs - asynchronous (non-realtime) VFTs are basically educational websites that pretend to offer a field trip experience, while synchronous (realtime) VFTs are essentially field trips conducted via videoconferencing. Rather than actually travel a long distance for a real field trip, a classroom can take an interactive video tour with an expert tour guide, live and in realtime over the internet. VFT claims to be the next best thing to being there in person. Many organizations offer this service, from museums and historical sites to science labs and NASA centers. What's even cooler is that many of these VFTs offer tours and lesson plans that directly tie into the K12 curriculum. So not only will the experts give the students an educational tour of their facility, but they will give lessons that directly supplement their classroom education. For example, you could schedule a VFT with the Baseball Hall of Fame for a lesson on batting averages that ties into the math lessons your class does every day - all on targeted grade levels. I went and checked out the Baseball Hall of Fame's site, and they actually offer a pretty wide variety of comprehensive lesson plans, from statistics and averages to even a series of lessons about the civil rights movement.

I think VFTs are a very interesting way to supplement instruction. It can't be denied that being able to actually see places and talk to experts would certainly engage students more than the alternative. For example, why would a class in Kansas care about marine biology? Well maybe they would be more interested if they could take a VFT of an ocean lab. However, I am concerned about the relative cost. It is important not to be too blinded by fancy technology, and instead look at what service this provides and how much it costs. What this amounts to is hiring a professor to come in and teach your class for an hour or two, and it's not likely that your school has the capability. The article said that less than 1/3 of schools nationwide have the necessary equipment for this technology. If your school is in that minority that has the capability - great. For such schools, VFTs are a great way to interest your students by letting them directly engage with the material they're studying. If not, setting up the high-tech videoconferencing equipment that the VFT-providing organizations rely upon seems to be pretty expensive, and I don't think purchasing the equipment provides enough benefit to be a very high priority for most schools. And despite the name "Virtual Field Trip," I think these are hardly a complete replacement for a real field trip. These days, students look at computer screens on a daily basis - one could argue a VFT is just another day of staring at a screen. While VFTs might be more engaging than regular instruction, nothing should be able to compare with being able to actually see the place with your own eyes. Field trips play an important role in student development by letting them physically engage with the material, and sitting in class watching a screen will never be a wholly equal substitute.

VFTs are an innovative and engaging way to supplement instruction in technologically capable classrooms, but the high barrier to entry for most schools in America means that most teachers should probably first look into less costly and more educational ways to integrate technology into the classroom.