Fieldwork in the curriculum - To what extent does fieldwork relate to Biggs' theory of constructive alignment?
Contents
Project Members
Martyn Stewart (Liverpool John Moores University) (Project Leader), Jim Andrews (University of Southampton), , Wendy Sougnez (Keswick/Liverpool John Moores University), Tim Stott (Liverpool John Moores University), Pauline Kneale (University of Leeds)
Abstract
This paper describes the results of the 'Fieldwork in the Curriculum' project, as part of the wider LTSN-GEES pedagogic research and fieldwork programme. This project sought to understand to what extent current practice in fieldwork reflects Bigg's constructive alignment model (Biggs, 1999) in which teaching methods and assessments are closely aligned with intended learning outcomes. The overt curriculum of field skills, hands-on experience and linking the real world and the classroom, appears to be well defined and well developed. However, learning outcomes reflect a 'hidden curriculum' (e.g. group work) which is considered important but which does not generally appear to align closely with teaching content or with assessment.
Methodology
This programme investigates the degree to which teaching in the field (and pre- and post-fieldwork activities) are compatible or aligned with curriculum objectives via related teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks. Particular attention has been paid to staff perceptions of the role of fieldwork in the curriculum, the extent to which departments design or adopt fieldwork strategies and the degree to which fieldwork is integrated into the wider curriculum. Biggs' (1999) concepts of constructive alignment have been employed to inform the analysis.
The project was under taken in two strands, the first being a questionnaire sent to the subject representatives in each GEES department in the UK. This was followed up by a series of in-depth interviews with a selection of these staff. Parallel development of pedagogic research capacity amongst the investigators has been an important additional outcome of this project.
Phase 1 Data Collection
The first data collection phase used a short, semi-structured questionnaire. The first and second questions concerned perceptions of the present and future role of fieldwork in the wider curriculum, and the degree to which fieldwork is currently integrated into the curriculum. Respondents were also asked to indicate their perceptions of the relative importance of various aspects of fieldwork in the wider curriculum. Following on, two open questions sought opinions on how the respondent considered the role of fieldwork in the curriculum might develop over the next five years and what they considered would be the most notable impact on students' learning were fieldwork opportunities to be reduced. 40 questionnaires were returned representing 20% of the GEES departments surveyed nationally. Responses were coded for analysis according to institution type (pre-1992, post-1992 universities, and Further Education colleges) and the three GEES disciplines.
Two types of data were generated by the project's first phase. Responses recorded on a 3- or 5- point scale were statistically summarised, but responses to 'open' questions required qualitative data analysis using techniques unfamiliar to the team. To facilitate this, a social science researcher (Sougnez) with experience of interpretative methods in educational research joined the group.
Phase 2 Data Collection
The intention of the second phase interviews was to uncover depths of understanding that may otherwise have been inaccessible. The first phase data analysis was used to inform the structure of these interviews. The in-depth interviews with members of academic staff who had returned the original questionnaires were designed to explore in detail issues raised in the questionnaire and to further investigate departmental strategies for fieldwork management.
Each of the four field-active investigators under took two semi-structured,
30-45 minute, taped interviews in a schedule designed to cover all three GEES
disciplines and old university, new university and FE provision. Most interviews
were conducted during the Summer of 2002. Capacity for qualitative data analysis
was enhanced after two members of the team attended the LTSN-GEES Data Analysis
Workshop in May 2002 supporting the overarching project (Coventry, May 2002).
Findings
The data gained from the questionnaire and interviews lead to the following general observations, which will be evaluated and discussed in more detail elsewhere.
- The overt curriculum which includes field skills, hands-on experience and linking the real world and the classroom appears to be well documented and supported by a range of relevant activities. However, there was also evidence of a 'hidden curriculum' where outcomes are claimed by the academic staff but are not necessarily explicit in the course documentation, the teaching or the assessment. The hidden curriculum includes team working, the development of interpersonal skills, self management and lifelong learning skills.
- Although the issue of assessment of transferable skills was claimed to be addressed through assessment procedures, there was relatively little evidence that these have been carefully designed or regularly reviewed for effectiveness.
- Learning outcomes reflecting the hidden curriculum (e.g. group work) were considered important but their allegedly key role was not generally reflected in existing assessment procedures.
- More positively, linkages between fieldwork locations and staff research
areas imply a strong synergy between teaching and research, as does the
investigative nature of many level 2 and level 3 field courses.
Outputs
- Carrying out Pedagogic Research into the Constructive Alignment of Fieldwork from Planet Special Edition 5 - Part B Pedagogic Research in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
- Abstract of Staff Perceptions Of The Role Of Fieldwork In The UK Gees Curriculum from Paper Presented at the LTSN-GEES Residential Conference held Monday June 30th - Tuesday July 1st 2003