The impact on the learning and teaching experience of the removal of fieldwork from academic programmes in the GEES subject areas
Contents
Project Members
Ian Scott (Project Leader), Ian Fuller, Steve Gaskin
Abstract
The paper investigates the student perceptions of geography and environmental sciences fieldwork in the light of its absence in many UK GEES departments in the spring/summer of 2001, due to Foot and Mouth disease.
Methodology
Information on student perceptions of the value of fieldwork was obtained using Nominal Group Technique (NGT). NGT is a focus group research method which can be used in educational environments to obtain information from a group on a specific topic.
(Delbecq et al ., 1975) . Focus groups are useful as they allow information to be yielded from a group within a 'permissive and non-threatening environment' (CHED, 2002) and NGT's main advantage is that it focuses on participant (e.g. student) rather than evaluator (e.g. staff) interests. For further information on NGT and some recommendations on the potential use of NGT in an educational context, see Gaskin (2003). In this study, NGT was applied to five groups of final year students from five separate UK Universities and it elicited almost 300 responses from 33 students representing a high level of group consensus on the issues involved.
These responses were in answer to the questions:
Q1a: In the light of any previous field experiences, how could fieldwork have made this unit better?
Q1b: In the light of any previous field experiences, how could fieldwork have made this unit worse?
Q2: What impact do you think the loss/withdrawal of fieldwork had on your experience of the unit and understanding of the subject?
Rationalisation of student responses to these questions then took place with
each response being assigned to one of 12 categories reflecting and amplifying
Gold et al.'s (1991) suggested key educational objectives addressed by geography
fieldwork (e.g. experiential, technical, analytical,
environmental, financial). Further details on this application of NGT can
be found in Fuller et al. (2003).
Findings
The votes for each NGT response were converted to percentages to standardise the results, and also weighted according to group size. This generates a statistic (% Weighted Total Available Vote) which provides an overall picture of aggregated student responses to each of the three NGT questions posed. Further detail on the derivation of the statistics are found in Fuller et al. (2003). In short, the higher the % WTAV, the stronger the overall group's commitment across all five universities to that (category of) response (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Student votes for each category across all 5 universities, expressed as a percentage of the weighted total available number of votes (WTAV) (after Fuller et al., 2003) in response to questions Q1a and b and Q2 (see main text)
Overall, there was a strong indication that the perception of field experiences by students is overwhelmingly positive and the positive perceptions (Q1a) far outweighed the negative perceptions (Q1b). In addition , NGT responses to Q2, concerning the impact of the withdrawal of fieldwork on student's understanding of the module, were virtually all negative.
On the positive side, and in response to Q1a the student groups identified the experience of reality (e.g. "putting theory into practice"), developing subject knowledge (e.g. "more likely to remember fieldwork than coursework"), acquiring technical (e.g. "get experience of using equipment to build up field skills"), transferable and holistic skills (e.g. "more confidence in exams and writing essays") and working with peers and lecturers, as being the most important perceived benefits of fieldwork.
The negative tone of the student responses to Q2 can also be used in part to reinforce the positive perceptions of fieldwork in response to Q1a. The actual loss/withdrawal of fieldwork adversely affected those components of fieldwork most positively held by the students. Results suggest that withdrawal of fieldwork had a substantially negative impact on module experience, in the context of the following issues: experiential (e.g. "didn't leave the classroom to see theory put into practice"), technical (e.g. "techniques and ideas learnt may have helped us when doing final-year project") and subject-specific knowledge (e.g. "less understanding of channel morphology").
The negative impacts of fieldwork considered by the students interviewed in this study, in response to Q1b, included time constraints (e.g. "more time spent on data analysis which is often tedious"), teaching / delivery (e.g. "missing parts of other lectures"), assessment / workload (e.g. "more work"), specific subject knowledge (e.g. "not many detailed notes"), technical ability (e.g. "may have found using equipment difficult and therefore not obtained accurate results") and finance (e.g. "expensive"). However, to re-iterate, these negative issues are far outweighed by the positive issues raised by students.
Outputs
- Student perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork in
the light of restricted access to the field, caused by Foot and Mouth Disease
in the UK in 2001 - Journal of Geography in Higher Education
Ian Fuller1, Steve Gaskin2, Ian Scott3
1 Division of Geography, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK. Corresponding author: Ian.Fuller@unn.ac.uk
2 LTSN Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
3 Health Care Education Development Unit, City University, Northampton Square, London, EC1U OHB, UK© Journal of Geography in Higher Education
Abstract re-produced with permission.
ABSTRACT
Internationally, fieldwork is generally seen as intrinsic to the very nature of geographical education. However, objective experimentation comparing student learning experiences with and without fieldwork is rare. During 2001 in the UK, fieldwork was withdrawn from many university degree programmes as Foot and Mouth Disease led to restrictions on access to the countryside. This restriction provided an unexpected opportunity to assess student perceptions of fieldwork in the light of its absence and to review those alternative learning strategies which were put in its place (where appropriate). To this end, Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was applied to five groups of students from five separate UK Universities to obtain information on the groups’ perceptions of the value of fieldwork. NGT elicited almost 300 responses from 33 final year students representing a high level of group consensus on the issues involved. Rationalisation of responses identified 12 categories, which reflect and amplify key educational objectives addressed by fieldwork in geography and environmental sciences from existing theoretical literature. Results demonstrate that student perception of fieldwork (based on previous university-level field experiences) is overwhelmingly positive. The groups identified the experience of geographical reality, developing subject knowledge, acquiring technical, transferable and holistic skills and working with peers and lecturers, as being the most important perceived benefits of fieldwork. Negative impacts of fieldwork included high levels of time consumption. Using a systematic and objective methodology, these results confirm, in a novel rigorous multi-institutional approach, the conception of geography and environmental science fieldwork as being of significant value for the overall student learning experience.
- Planet Article - Perceptions of Geography and Environmental Science Fieldwork in the Light of Foot and Mouth Disease, UK, 2001: What do Students Really Think? from Planet Special Edition 5 - Part B Pedagogic Research in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
- Abstract of Perceptions Of Geography And Environmental Science Fieldwork In the Light of Foot and Mouth Disease, UK, 2001: What do Students Really Think? from Paper Presented at the LTSN-GEES Residential Conference held Monday June 30th - Tuesday July 1st 2003