Exploring the Significance of 360-Degree Video Technology on Fieldwork
Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives
Leandro Navarro Hundzinski
1
, Fathima Assilmia
1
, Keiko Okawa
2
and Le Thao Chi Vu
3
1
Global Research Institute, Keio University, Japan
2
Graduate School of Media Design, Keio University, Japan
3
Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University, Japan
Keywords:
Fieldwork Education, 360-Degree Camera, 360-Degree Video.
Abstract:
This paper discusses the use of 360-degree cameras in two distinct fieldwork learning activities in higher edu-
cation. This study aims to identify specific contributions of 360-degree video and its relation to the fieldwork
learning process, from the perspective of students and when compared to other tools and methods for data col-
lection. A mixed-methods approach was utilized to understand students’ learning process, obtaining data by
survey, analysis of results from in-class activities, and observational analysis. In total, 83 students participated
in these activities. The two activities showcase how 360-degree video can be utilized by students in relation to
fieldwork activities, to collect data and to back their claims with evidence. By investigating common themes
on self-reports written by the students, the unique contributions of 360-degree camera on field observation
and subsequent approaches to data analysis are highlighted when compared to other tools and methods. The
understanding of these unique contributions points bring us closer to identifying specific learning components
for the design of educational programs that can benefit from this technology.
1 INTRODUCTION
Fieldwork can be considered a fundamental activity
in developing real-world experience in higher educa-
tion. It is a multilayered practice in which students
develop observational skills, evidence-based mindset,
critical thinking, and social awareness. Considering
its versatility, developing a fieldwork mindset based
on the practical application of research methods can
be a challenging task for students.
To address this, fieldwork education blends topics
and components of several different areas of human
knowledge. This includes utilizing new technologies,
such as 360-degree cameras, which in turn might al-
low data to be captured in different formats and that
lead to different interpretations. Thus, this research
aims investigate the benefits enabled by 360 technol-
ogy during field observation and as a versatile and rich
media format for fieldwork.
This research aims to address the following ques-
tion: What are the unique contributions of 360-degree
video technology on higher education students’ field-
work learning, especially when compared to other
tools and methods available to collected and process
field data? To address this, we will focus on the spe-
cific impact of these technologies based on the stu-
dent’s perspective. As mentioned by (Fedesco et al.,
2020), much of the existing literature related to field-
based learning in higher education focuses on specific
subjects. We consider a multidisciplinary approach
to fieldwork learning and for the application of these
technologies instead, which might illustrate different
uses than those in more specialized subjects.
The activities in this research took place in a
higher education class at Keio University, Japan. The
class called Asia Workshop aims to facilitate stu-
dents’ first-hand observations of problems and en-
courage original interpretations of collected data. The
topics covered aim to be expansive and students come
from different undergraduate courses and countries.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Fieldwork as a Learning Practice in
Higher Education
As described by Pole and Hillyard (2016), fieldwork
is a “total experience aimed at capturing meaning”.
526
Hundzinski, L., Assilmia, F., Okawa, K. and Vu, L.
Exploring the Significance of 360-Degree Video Technology on Fieldwork Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives.
DOI: 10.5220/0012707200003693
Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024) - Volume 1, pages 526-533
ISBN: 978-989-758-697-2; ISSN: 2184-5026
Proceedings Copyright © 2024 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda.

As such, this nature of fieldwork is aligned with the
requirements for experiential learning to take place
(Fedesco et al., 2020; Haipt, 1982; Lai, 1999).
The structure of fieldwork in higher education of-
ten provides a precious opportunity for students to
reflect on their experiences, inducing learning based
on self-reflection (Konishi, 2020). Self-reflection is a
fundamental step in the process of experiential learn-
ing, as described by Kolb’s et al. (2001) Experien-
tial Learning Model: from a Concrete Experiences
that leads to a Reflective Observation. Considering
students’ reflections on field experience, Takahashi
et al. (2020) conducted a qualitative based on post-
fieldwork reflection sheets, in which first-year univer-
sity students’ answers were analysed and 100 most
frequently used words extracted. The authors found
links between fieldwork activity with a “sense of dis-
covery” (understand, know, and feel) and “encoun-
ters with people” (community and person), emphasiz-
ing students’ experience in observing and understand-
ing their surrounding environment during fieldwork
(Takahashi et al., 2020).
By stimulating self-reflection, fieldwork galva-
nizes students with a self-driven need to improve
themselves. Ito and Igano (2020) corroborate this ar-
gument, emphasizing that when self-evaluating, stu-
dents felt improvements in critical thinking, problem-
solving skills, and adaptability after joining the field-
work programs. This positive development of trans-
verse skills has been observed by several researchers
concerning experiential learning (Villarroel et al.,
2020). Student’s perspective of improvement from
participation in field activities plays an important role
in their confidence. The increase in confidence, for
example, can improve students’ participation, and en-
joyment in learning, give an experience-sharing mind-
set and increase their interest in goal-seeking (Akbari
and Sahibzada, 2020).
2.2 Enhancing Field-Based Learning by
the Use of Technology
When incorporated into fieldwork, technology can
enhance learning by improving teaching strategies
(Welsh et al., 2013). Lundmark et al. (2020) em-
phasize that students have a positive outlook on the
use of technology during fieldwork activities, increas-
ing their overall confidence. Those values are well-
perceived by fieldwork education research, and the
design and implementation of new modes of field-
work activities with the usage of technology are
frequently developed (Cliffe, 2017; Minocha et al.,
2018).
Traditional fieldwork methods, such as ethnogra-
phy, are seeing constant transformation with techno-
logical development. As Wieser (2015) states, “Tech-
nology as a tool for ethnographic fieldwork may act
as a bridge between the objectivity of an event and
the subjectivity in which this event was perceived,
as both perspectives scaffold the construction of an
account on processes of knowledge transformation”.
This illustrates how technology and traditional field-
work methods can complement each other, instead
of playing opposites. Ahlin and Li (2019) further
discuss how information and communication tech-
nologies currently push for a reconsideration of the
practice and concept of fieldwork, deeply influencing
what can be considered a field site and how fieldwork-
ers capture and see data from the field. Technology
can enable fieldwork to be virtualized, enabling ac-
tivities in a context beyond difficulties to access the
field, but by structuring a different type of field activ-
ity (Garc
´
ıa-Comendador et al., 2022)).
As synthesised by Maskall et al. (2007), innova-
tive technologies can be used in the context of higher
education fieldwork. The foundational aspects are
also perceived in recent technologies and new solu-
tions, highlighting the continuous integration of tech-
nology and fieldwork over the years:
• Enhance students’ preparedness.
• Connect the field to important information that
can be accessed remotely.
• Capture and record events in the field in new for-
mats.
• Be integrated in post-fieldwork assessment.
2.3 360-Degree Cameras: Capturing
the Field
Commenting on the features of 360-degree video,
Feurstein (2018) argues that it reduces the complexity
of creating virtual environments, facilitating the adop-
tion of this type of technology in educational settings.
The 360-degree camera allows for capturing multiple
viewing angles and perspectives, both for audio and
video, while providing an engaging, realistic, and in-
teractive output in the 360-degree environment (Lam-
propoulos et al., 2021). This feature of 360-degree
video can provide excellent benefits in fieldwork, as
its characteristics are relevant to observation and data
collection in the field.
Tan et al.’s (2020) in-depth analysis of 360-degree
video for teaching and learning is deeply linked to
an understanding and appreciation of multimodal re-
sources (language, text, gesture, etc.) and their con-
nections to meaning in different contexts. The in-
clusion of 360-degree content for teaching-learning
Exploring the Significance of 360-Degree Video Technology on Fieldwork Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives
527

is also believed to bring authentic and realistic sce-
narios for learning, provide opportunities for multi-
perspective observation to take place, and enable indi-
vidual learning (Rosendahl and Wagner, 2024). This
is especially significant in the context of fieldwork,
where many different elements contribute to forming
a whole perspective on different fields and areas of
knowledge.
Several researchers and educational institutions
have utilized 360-degree pictures and videos to show-
case field sites or disseminate field information for
field workers. For example, the Stanford Doerr
School of Sustainability (n.d.) established a platform
where students can access field information by uti-
lizing 360-degree images within a navigable virtual
map. The Kyoto University ASEAN Centre (n.d.) uti-
lizes 360-degree video shots in various fields, sharing
them for viewing and navigation as a visualization of
remote fieldwork activities.
Research on the use of 360-degree cameras in
ethnography proposes a potential use of 360-degree
cameras in fieldwork and data analysis (Tojo et al.,
2021). Tojo et al. (2021) mention that the tech-
nology helps ethnographers focus on their subjective
observation while the camera captures the objective
data of the main situation and the surroundings in a
less intrusive manner than conventional video record-
ing. Another study on teacher-student-environment
interactions used 360-degree video recording as the
data collection method, and the author emphasizes the
benefit of using this technology in observing complex
interactions, in this case, educational settings (Svo-
bodov
´
a, 2023). This could not be achieved with con-
ventional recording, which offers a limited recording
perspective. From the perspective of data analysis af-
ter collecting data in the field, Tojo also suggests that
it can offer the opportunity for collaborative analysis
and reinterpretation (Tojo et al., 2021).
3 DESIGN
3.1 Context
The two fieldwork activities to be described in this
paper took part in the context of the higher education
classes, one in 2022 and another in 2023. Two ac-
tivities were held as a part of a fieldwork-education-
oriented class called Asia Workshop, at Keio Univer-
sity, Japan.
Both activities aim to incorporate the practice of
fieldwork to develop core research skills (observation,
interpretation, substantiation, presentation and story-
telling), together with transverse skills (critical think-
ing, teamwork, problem-solving skills, adaptability,
multicultural interactions).
All participating students are undergraduate-level
higher education students. In total, 83 students, from
several different countries in Asia. They participated
in the following activities with 360-degree cameras:
• Activity 1. Capturing the campus and Virtual
Reality (VR) Viewing with 27 students at Asia
Workshop 2022.
• Activity 2. Capturing the campus and in-depth
data analysis with 56 students at Asia Workshop
2023.
For the activities, each student in the groups had
their own tools/methods to do data collection on the
field. This means, each student will have a unique
method within that group to collect evidence.
3.2 Activity 1: Capturing the Campus
and VR Viewing
This activity was conducted on two separate days, in
mid-October of 2022. On the first day, students were
separated into groups and asked to go around the cam-
pus and search for “Signs of Fall”. In total, 9 different
groups were formed, with 27 students participating in
this activity.
Figure 1: Student recording the field with a 360-degree
camera.
While the topic was simple, students were asked
to have sharp attention and detail, utilizing differ-
ent methods for data collection. This was their first
practice in data collection and field observation. The
methods/tools that the students used to capture field
data were:
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
528

• Note-taking.
• Sketching.
• Taking pictures and/or videos with a smartphone.
• Recording video with a 360-degree camera.
Each student in the group used a unique mode at
the field, meaning, that in each group, there were no
repeated forms to capture data from the field. Be-
fore going to the field, students wrote what they ex-
pected to see when searching for the “signs of Fall”
on campus. After returning from the field and into the
classroom, students were able to share the unique data
types they captured with each other to draw their con-
clusions from. After discussion within their groups,
their insights and findings were shared to all groups
in class.
Figure 2: Different data collected from the same observa-
tion, by two different students within the same group.
Students self-reported their impressions on the
data gathering activities on the first day. They re-
ported on what they found in the field that was differ-
ent or not covered by their initial imaginative exercise
of imagining the field. To analyse their results on this
first day, we analysed the different types of tools they
collected in the field, and how they described the find-
ings (new signs of autumn). Interestingly, there was a
certain similarity on how the students described their
findings based on the tools/methods that they used on
the field.
By categorizing the self-reports from students us-
ing the same tools/methods, some common points or
tendencies became apparent. For example, students
utilizing 360 cameras on the field referenced more
to sounds and less tangible perceptions, such as sen-
sory information. Table 1 compiles these common
self-reported themes listed by students from different
groups that were using the same type of tools/methods
to collect data on the field, highlighting different per-
ceptions:
Table 1: Common self-report themes based on
tools/methods for data collection in Activity 1.
Tools /
Methods
# of stu-
dents
Common self-report
themes
360-
degree
Video
9 Focus on concepts
(flavour, changes in
clouds and sky), sounds
(loud birds, crunching
leaves, crickets) and en-
vironmental conditions
(humidity, smell)
Photos
(Smart-
phone)
9 Changes of state over
time, with an emphasis
on change of colors on
leaves and leaves falling
from the trees
Sketches 8 Visual details, such
as passersby’s outfits
and tangible objects
like fallen leaves and
mushrooms
Notes 1 Sensation and feeling
(”feeling cold”)
While this comparison might include personal
and subjective perspectives, the common self-report
themes could indicate a specific benefits of unique
forms to observe and collect data. Understanding the
different nature and value of each tool/method can
contribute to finding specific focuses and contribu-
tions. This could assist in highlighting the potential
of 360-degree cameras in the fieldwork setting, with-
out disregarding the usefulness and intrinsic value of
other data collection methods.
On the second day of the activity, which took two
weeks after the first part, students were able to re-
visit the materials they collected and watch their 360-
degree video footage on Meta Quest 2 VR headsets.
Students reported their impressions of the field based
on the data they could reanalyse on the second day,
and then compared with what their original impres-
sion was on the first day. This enabled them to under-
stand how each format of collecting data assisted in
their understanding of the field.
Overall, students highlighted the new findings
they saw and perceived with the footage in VR, es-
pecially focused on how they could look at things
from different angles, helping to notice: the number
of leaves on the ground, clothes those passing around
were wearing, sky coloration, sounds of animals and
wind. Students reported different impressions about
the experience.
Referring to the sense of presence, one student
“VR allows you to experience the physical environ-
Exploring the Significance of 360-Degree Video Technology on Fieldwork Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives
529

ment and brings back vivid memories of the field.”.
Another student said they could see “high parts of
trees which I could not see with my own eyes”, show-
casing one of the potentials of 360-degree cameras. A
third student reported on how they could capture nu-
anced information that was helpful afterwards: “The
video captured the tone of how people respond, facial
expressions, and body language. Some people were
rubbing their hands which shows the autumn’s tem-
perature. I remembered the interviewee’s answer, but
not so much about people’s expressions.”
Students’ findings from this activity illustrates
some of the values of 360-degree content for field-
work. By analysing the data afterwards, they could
enrich their findings. However, it is also important
to highlight the shortcomings of the technology, such
as details not being clear enough. These difficul-
ties should be considered when utilizing 360-degree
video, as in this case other tools, such as traditional
photography, could be better on specific situations
where different aspects need to be emphasized.
3.3 Activity 2: Capturing the Campus
and In-Depth Data Analysis
For the first day of activity 2, 11 different groups were
formed, with 56 students participating on two sepa-
rate days in mid-October of 2023. Just like activity 1,
on the first day, students were separated into groups
and asked to go around the campus. This time, how-
ever, the analysis of the field was more nuanced, in-
stead of focusing on a simpler topic to enable the anal-
ysis of the different capturing tools and methods. For
activity 2, students went to their field on the campus
and looked for evidence that would indicate that their
campus is: a Japanese, an Asian, or a Global campus.
Figure 3: Students exploring the campus in Activity 2.
The textual data on Figure 4 below are not all
clearly readable, but were kept as is to keep visual
fidelity on how it was captured by the students:
Figure 4: Example of different data types presented by stu-
dents, showcasing evidence of global elements on campus.
The notes refer to road mirrors, street signs, jas-
mine plant, wifi router from cisco, roundabout). The
other data are from different students within the same
group, which were collecting data on the same loca-
tion and shows what was captured by photography,
sketching and with the 360 camera.
In total, 49 out of the 56 students participated
in data collection in the field. The absent students
worked online with their group analysing the captured
data and presenting it to the class. Table 2 expands on
the data presented on Table 1. It draws the data from
students self-reports on their field experience on cam-
pus, describing their findings based on the data they
collected to find evidences for the fieldwork focus (is
the campus Japanese, Asian or Global).
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
530

Table 2: Common self-report themes based on
tools/methods for data collection in Activity 2.
Tools /
Methods
# of stu-
dents
Common Self-Report
Themes
360-
degree
Video
11 Cultural atmosphere, vi-
sual and sensory per-
ception, nature and sur-
roundings
Photos 11 Objects as cultural
artifacts, architectural
styles, visual documen-
tation of campus life
Video 11 Multilingual environ-
ment, how buildings are
utilized (people behavior
on spaces), culture in
motion (students eating
with chopsticks, fallen
autumn leaves being
cleaned).
Notes 11 In-depth analysis and
descriptive details, per-
sonal reflections and
interpretations
Sketches 5 Cultural objects, clear
identified items and
information associated
with the sketch (pic-
togram, distinct shapes
or objects)
While this analysis of common points can have
some biases from the individual students experiences
with utilizing the tools/methods to capture data, they
seem to indicate an overall direction in which the stu-
dents perceive the field by using different approaches.
Particularly on how students feel on the field while
capturing data with 360-degree cameras, students that
used these devices tended to focus more on their sen-
sory perceptions, overall atmosphere and surround-
ings. This unique point associated to these devices
highlight a possible potentiality in utilizing it on
the field when compared to other options (such as
photos being more focused on visuals and tangible
things, traditional video focused on motions, notes
focused on in-depth and personal interpretations, and
sketches transmitting visual, simplified interpretative
data). These initial distinctions can provide directions
for future research and for the design of more tailored
fieldwork learning experiences for students.
For the second day of the activity, the students
would have one week in between to analyse their
collected data and reach their conclusions. Like ac-
tivity 1, each student group also utilized different
tools/methods to capture the field. This time, how-
ever, they utilized those different types of data to help
them formulate their findings in a group activity, by
merging all data collected within their groups. In to-
tal, 11 different groups were formed, with 56 students
participating in this activity.
All 11 groups utilized 360-degree video content
to revisit the field and find extra evidence, linking
it with the other data types. The groups did not
need to follow specific guidelines on how to use the
data, so each group had their own approaches. Some
groups used the 360-degree video to show the field in
real-time during their presentations, guiding the au-
dience while navigating and describing specific cuts
and short scenes. Other groups shared screenshots of
the 360-degree data, while others just freely described
how the 360-degree data contributed to their own find-
ings and fieldwork experience.
The results of this activity were centered on stu-
dents’ presentation on the second day, and how they
utilized different data formats to gather evidence and
reach a conclusion about the research question (if the
campus was Japanese, Asian, or Global). Most of
these were self-reports from the students during the
presentation session and their explanations of how
they utilized the data
The following remarks from students during the
presentation represent their personal experiences with
the 360-degree camera, and how they feel this type of
technology contributes to their field exploration pro-
cess.
Finding New Information. Several groups re-
ported finding new things that they did not notice be-
fore when watching the 360-degree footage. One spe-
cific mention is how one group noticed the brands of
cars in the parking lot and noticed that many were
imported. This led them to further investigate the
footage and make claims related to international com-
ponents on campus.
Seeing Others in the Field (and Themselves). One
student utilizing the 360-degree camera reported that
she felt she was able to look at what her teammates
were doing during the data collection process, as the
360-degree video recording process was quite passive
(she just kept recording everything). As mentioned by
her, she only paid attention to that because the type of
technology allowed her to do it. Afterwards, she re-
visited the 360-degree video and was able to look at
herself as well, and how she behaved during the data
collection process. This unique aspect of 360-degree
cameras enables the fieldworkers to see themselves
during the data collection process, which can lead to
Exploring the Significance of 360-Degree Video Technology on Fieldwork Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives
531

unique interpretations and analyses of the field activ-
ities. She mentioned a feeling of having “behind-the-
scenes” from the footage.
Privacy Concerns. One of the students raised the
concern of feeling guilty when shooting because, with
the 360-degree camera, she was capturing everything
around, including people who might not want to ap-
pear in the video. This means that people and all sur-
roundings are captured in the video, and the student
realized this. This raises an important point, as the
content might need to be filtered for public sharing.
4 FINDINGS
The design of fieldwork activities for students to col-
lect evidence on campus with different tools/methods
enabled us to highlight different perceptions on the
applicability and usefulness of 360-degree video for
fieldwork learning.
Tables 1 and 2 provide a direction to better under-
stand the nuances and applicability of each tool and
method in fieldwork. While this paper focused on
exploring the significance of 360-degree video tech-
nology, other tools and methods also have their own
unique contributions for fieldwork learning in higher
education. This became apparent when comparing
the students’ self-reports and could point to a direc-
tion that needs to be further researched. Understand-
ing the unique benefits and limitations of each mode
could help to improve the design of fieldwork learn-
ing activities for students.
Another point to be considered is on how students
felt natural observing the field while using the 360-
degree cameras. There was a general consensus from
students utilizing these cameras that they were able to
capture things that they were not realizing, on their
”blind-spots” to directly refer one of the student’s
feedback to the class. This lead to a mindset of dig-
ging deeper into the data collected on the field, as the
students themselves were looking forward to watch
the 360-degree video footage. However, it is impor-
tant to consider that there were differences on how the
students perceived it in the activity 1 (2022) and ac-
tivity 2 (2023) based on the second day of the activity:
• Activity 1 - VR viewing of 360 footage: Students
within the groups only had time during the class
to explore the 360 footage and draw new associ-
ations. The fact that each student needed to take
turns to use the Meta Quest 2 devices, as well as to
get used to it, also made it more difficult for them
to focus on the footage itself. Many were focused
on the novelty of experiencing it in VR, or sim-
ply immersed on the experience of viewing it with
while controlling it with their heads and finding
audio queues around the scene. They could still
find new information or strengthen their claims,
but there was a layer of novelty and fun connected
to the VR experience itself.
• Activity 2 - One week to analyze the 360-degree
video with other data and presentation: Stu-
dents were able to present a great amount of data
extracted from the 360 video to showcase and
demonstrate their findings. They could also share
it easily with everyone in the class by structuring
their presentations. Different groups chose differ-
ent approaches on how to show the 360-degree
video. Some of them used it as a guided tour
during the presentation, others took screenshots,
and others made shorter pre-edited videos to show
only one perspective of the 360 video.
In this sense, it is possible to consider that two dif-
ferent criteria need to be considered for the field-
work learning experiences. First, on how the stu-
dents will utilize the 360-degree devices on the
field itself to capture data. However, after that,
the activity design needs to consider what type of
output and follow-up learning outcomes are more
relevant, which will direct the type of interac-
tions students should have with the captured data.
While this might happen for the other tools and
methods as well, it might be worth taking special
consideration with 360-degree media, as the na-
ture of the consumption completely changed they
way students engaged on the post-fieldwork anal-
ysis, as reflected on the differences between activ-
ity 1 and activity 2.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This paper discussed 360-degree cameras and videos
in the context of fieldwork learning activities in higher
education, focusing on how the technology is per-
ceived and utilized by students. Two different activi-
ties were conducted, where 83 students were involved
in fieldwork activities taking place on the university
campus. The results from students’ perspectives on
360-degree video and the usage of 360-degree cam-
eras on the field point towards a beneficial relation-
ship between the technology and fieldwork learning
experiences on the students’ perspectives. By list-
ing common self-report themes, this research aimed
to identify specific scenarios and usages of the 360-
degree technology. Distinguishing the it from other
tools and methods can assist future designs of field-
CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
532

work learning experiences.
Additional activity designs should be included and
explored to establish a more robust link between 360-
degree technologies and students’ fieldwork experi-
ences. With this consideration, this study identified
directions for further research to take place and ex-
plore its benefits to fieldwork learning.
Furthermore, while this paper was focused on
the insights obtained from students’ participation in
the fieldwork activities, future research might bene-
fit from combining lecturers’ viewpoints as another
point of analysis.
REFERENCES
Ahlin, T. and Li, F. (2019). From field sites to field events.
Medicine Anthropology Theory, 6(2).
Akbari, O. and Sahibzada, J. (2020). Students’ self-
confidence and its impacts on their learning process.
American International Journal of Social Science Re-
search, 5(1):1–15.
Cliffe, A. D. (2017). A review of the benefits and drawbacks
to virtual field guides in today’s geoscience higher ed-
ucation environment. International Journal of Educa-
tional Technology in Higher Education, 14(1):1–14.
Fedesco, H. N., Cavin, D., and Henares, R. (2020). Field-
based learning in higher education: Exploring the ben-
efits and possibilities. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 20(1).
Feurstein, M. S. (2018). Towards an integration of 360-
degree video in higher education. In Proceedings
of DeLFI Workshops 2018 co-located with 16th e-
Learning Conference of the German Computer Soci-
ety (DeLFI 2018), pages 1–12. CEUR Workshop Pro-
ceedings.
Garc
´
ıa-Comendador, J., Fortesa, J., P
´
erez, M. R., Estrany,
J., Canals, B. S., and Bey, J. M. P. (2022). Capacidad
de las tic para virtualizar el trabajo de campo teor
´
ıa y
pr
´
actica desde la geograf
´
ıa. HUMAN REVIEW. Inter-
national Humanities Review/Revista Internacional de
Humanidades, 14(6):1–13.
Haipt, M. (1982). Experiential learning techniques in field-
work. Improving College and University Teaching,
30(3):130–132.
Ito, H. and Igano, C. (2021). International fieldwork as
skills development: an exploratory study. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 45(3):417–434.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., and Mainemelis, C. (2014).
Experiential learning theory: Previous research and
new directions. In Perspectives on thinking, learning,
and cognitive styles, pages 227–247. Routledge.
Konishi, N. (2020). A review of international field trips:
Adding value to the learning of and preparing for
global human resources in japan. Journal of Policy
Studies, (61):71–80.
Kyoto University ASEAN Center (n.d.). Kyoto-asean vir-
tual fields. https://www.oc.kyoto- u.ac.jp/oversea
s-centers/asean/en/virtual-fields/, last accessed on
2023-12-28.
Lai, K. C. (1999). Geographical fieldwork as experiential
learning: a multiple case study of secondary school
field trips in Hong Kong. PhD thesis, Queensland Uni-
versity of Technology.
Lampropoulos, G., Barkoukis, V., Burden, K., and Anas-
tasiadis, T. (2021). 360-degree video in education: An
overview and a comparative social media data analy-
sis of the last decade. Smart Learning Environments,
8(1):1–24.
Lundmark, A. M., Augland, L. E., and Jørgensen, S. V.
(2020). Digital fieldwork with fieldmove-how do dig-
ital tools influence geoscience students’ learning ex-
perience in the field? Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 44(3):427–440.
Maskall, J., Stokes, A., Truscott, J. B., Bridge, A., Magnier,
K., and Calderbank, V. (2007). Supporting fieldwork
using information technology. Planet, 18(1):18–21.
Minocha, S., Tilling, S., and Tudor, A.-D. (2018). Role
of virtual reality in geography and science fieldwork
education.
Pole, C. and Hillyard, S. (2015). Doing fieldwork. Sage.
Rosendahl, P. and Wagner, I. (2024). 360 videos in
education–a systematic literature review on applica-
tion areas and future potentials. Education and Infor-
mation Technologies, 29(2):1319–1355.
Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability (n.d.). Instructional
resources - virtual field trips. https://fieldeducation.st
anford.edu/virtual-field-trips/, last accessed on 2023-
12-28.
Svobodov
´
a, H. (2023). Teacher-student-environment inter-
actions in fieldwork through 360-degree camera. The
New Educational Review, 71:78–89.
Takahashi, Y., Nakazawa, S., and Sasaki, H. (2020). Study
of reflections on university fieldwork courses: The
characteristics of learning content of students who vis-
ited disaster-affected areas. Journal of Disaster Re-
search, 15(7):959–968.
Tan, S., Wiebrands, M., O’Halloran, K., and Wignell, P.
(2020). Analysing student engagement with 360-
degree videos through multimodal data analytics and
user annotations. Technology, Pedagogy and Educa-
tion, 29(5):593–612.
Tojo, N., Oto, T., and Niida, S. (2021). How ethnographic
practices are reconfigured with 360-degree cameras.
In CHIRA, pages 115–122.
Villarroel, V., Benavente, M., Chuecas, M. J., and Bruna,
D. (2020). Experiential learning in higher education.
a student-centered teaching method that improves per-
ceived learning. Journal of University Teaching &
Learning Practice, 17(5):8.
Welsh, K. E., Mauchline, A. L., Park, J. R., Whalley, W. B.,
and France, D. (2013). Enhancing fieldwork learning
with technology: practitioner’s perspectives. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 37(3):399–415.
Wieser, C. (2015). Technology and ethnography–will it
blend? technological possibilities for fieldwork on
transformations of teacher knowledge with videogra-
phy and video diaries. In Seminar. net, volume 11.
Exploring the Significance of 360-Degree Video Technology on Fieldwork Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perspectives
533