Conducting research in fluvial geomorphology
Contact details
Dr. Ian Fuller
Geography Programme,
School of People, Environment and Planning,
Massey University,
Private Bag 11-222,
Palmerston North,
NEW ZEALAND.
Tel. +64 (0)6 350 5799 extn. 2851
Fax +64 (0)6 350 5644
Email I.C.Fuller@massey.ac.nz
Classification Category
- Developing student appreciation of research in the discipline
- Development of student research skills
- Using assignments which involve elements of research processes
Context
- Course/unit/module title: Fluvial Geomorphology: Process & Change
- Course title: B.Sc. Geography
- Final year undergraduate
What does the teacher do?
This 20 credit module provides a detailed, research-led and research-based analysis of process-form relationships operating at a range of spatial and temporal scales within fluvial systems. Although lectures are strongly informed by staff research, linkage with research is particularly galvanised by student-led investigation using fieldwork (group-based), culminating in submission of a research paper, which is written individually and counts for 50% of the total module assessment (remaining 50% is by examination). This project-work focuses on a selected field-based research question. Whilst I suggest a range of hypotheses, students are also free to choose their own research question to investigate. Hypotheses revolve around topics introduced in lectures and build on theory learned in the classroom (examples are included in an appendix).
Data are collected during a single field day on a local gravel-bed river. Students are given four weeks to prepare for this fieldwork (independently). This includes designing an effective fieldwork strategy, as well as engaging with key literature (key references are suggested as starting points). Advice is on offer during this period, particularly to check research design. Field equipment, and instruction on its use, is made available to the students for the day, and they are bused en mass to the site. There is a brief on-site introduction to the day's objective, thereafter students work in independent groups to collect the data they need to test their hypothesis. Supervision is light and advisory. Following the field day, there are three designated practicals to work up the data. Lecturer and demonstrator support are available to assist students during these sessions.
An unassessed group-presentation of the paper-in-progress 8 weeks after the field day provides opportunity to obtain formative feedback on the project (and provides a spur to engage with the work). Paper presentations include time for questions, permitting a detailed scrutinisation of the work. This is designed to reflect the research process, whereby prior to submission, papers are invariably presented at conference, and open to peer scrutiny. Building on what the students learn in this presentation-feedback session, they can then go on to finish their project by writing up the work in the style of an academic paper. This being the case, they need to show engagement with the literature to contextualise their research (a focussed literature review), methodologies applied - also set within a literature context. Results are analysed and summarised, and interpreted within a discussion which comprises two levels: (i) explanation of results (ii) comparison with previous research. Students are also required to write abstracts and conclusions for their paper. Whilst the fieldwork and data analysis are undertaken in groups, the final writing of the paper and assessment is an individual piece of work. Assessment criteria used are included in an appendix.
This project familiarises the students with the processes of academic research
within fluvial geomorphology. Many find the exercise of research design, implementation
and presentation of help in their dissertation work (due to be completed three
months after this project). The project provides students with an opportunity
to explore at depth an area of the field which they find of particular interest,
hopefully stimulating deeper levels of learning.
Hot tips and things to look out for
The type of research questions being posed should be readily achievable in a single day's fieldwork (6 to 8 hours allocated for fieldwork). It may be necessary to provide some pre-trip training on equipment to save time in the field. The research questions need a degree of originality (either site or concept) to take them beyond the textbooks, so that comparative research is found in papers.
Does it work?
To date the module has been very well received according to student evaluation. It has been perceived as challenging, developing both subject awareness and new skills. Virtually all students indicated a positive learning experience from lectures, practicals and fieldwork.
What problems/issues have arisen?
Students are reluctant to choose their own research question to work on, preferring to work on one of the eight given hypotheses. They are also reluctant to seek advice, both in planning and in data analysis, which means that careful questioning is required to draw the students in the right direction, without telling them what to do (which would otherwise reduce the quality of the research experience). Numbers taking the module to date have not exceeded 22, running this exercise with large groups may not be practical due to demand on equipment, or may require repeated field days.
Details of support material/course work/assessment methods
A detailed module booklet, containing module aims, programme, lecture details, suggested research hypotheses, assessment criteria, and technical information is available on request.
Relevant references
The precise method has not been published to my knowledge, although the principles involved are allied to the analytical-predictive approach to teaching advocated by Church (1988) and discussed further in the context of 1st year fieldwork in rivers by Fuller et al. (2000). In addition a paper by Charlesworth & Foster (1996) considers the concept of undergraduates writing papers for assessment as part of a hydrology course and Healey et al. (1996) discuss learning in small groups.
Charlesworth, S.M. & Foster, I.D.L. (1996). 'Water and environmental
systems': achieving student-centred learning objectives with an undergraduate
journal. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(1), 45-54.
Church, M. (1988) Problem orientation in physical geography teaching. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 12(1), 51-65.
Fuller, I.C., Rawlinson, S. & Bevan, J.R. (2000). Evaluation of student
learning experiences in physical geography fieldwork: paddling or pedagogy?
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 199-215.
Healey, M., Matthews, H., Livingstone, I. & Foster, I. (1996). Learning
in small groups in university geography courses: designing a core module around
group projects. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(2),
167-180.
Appendix
Click here for details of written guidance given to students as part of a module handbook (rtf), including project selection, assessment criteria, and assignment cover-sheet detailing aims. The word length of 4000 words is absolute maximum, beyond which penalties are incurred, students are encouraged to aim for 3000. Examples of technical information (methods) provided are also given.
[ If you would like the above word document in a different format please contact Mike Sanders ]