LTSN-GEES Residential Conference Paper, Poster and Good Practice Summary Abstracts

DAY ONE - Theme: Linking Teaching and Research

Monday 30th June 2003, 11:45 - 12:45 (Brittania Room 1)
Paper Session 1: Linking Teaching and Research (Chair: Pauline Kneale, School of Geography, University of Leeds)

Paper Abstract:

Integrated Teaching And Research In Geography And The Earth And Environmental Sciences As Exemplified By The Greenwich-Cyprus Initiative

Stephen Edwards, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences - The University of Greenwich at Medway
Email: s.j.edwards@greenwich.ac.uk

Integrated teaching and research focused on the island of Cyprus has been running at Greenwich since 1997. With assistance from government departments in Cyprus, 15 undergraduate students have undertaken their final-year projects on the island. Their work is linked to staff research and teaching and feeds into it. To maximise dissemination of information gained from their research, students and staff are creating a virtual field trip of Cyprus that will aid classroom-based teaching and training and pre-project field preparation. The integrated approach outlined here is a cost effective and innovative way to undertake research and to enhance teaching and learning.

Monday 30th June 2003, 11:45 - 12:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

Paper Abstract:

Digital Structural Mapping Of The Moine Thrust Foreland At Loch Assynt: An Example Of Interaction Between Research And Teaching

Ken McCaffrey, Bob Holdsworth, and Robert Wilson - Reactivation Research Group, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Durham
Email: k.j.w.mccaffrey@durham.ac.uk

Digital structural mapping (DSM) methods involve the acquisition of field data on hand-held computers operating Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software. By connecting to a GPS receiver, geospatial control on observations is automatically provided. With technology advancing rapidly, driven by applications in the engineering, construction and environmental monitoring industries, digital field mapping systems are now becoming affordable and can attain equivalent or better positional performance than is routinely achieved by traditional methods (compass clinometer, etc). For the field geologist there are a number of obvious advantages. Powerful multi-attribute mapping and high-resolution spatial analysis can be carried out during fieldwork. The ability to view and analyze data collected at each stage allows an iterative approach to be taken to structural problem solving. Field data may be directly imported to 3-D visualization, analysis and 4-D modeling packages, which can provide further constraints on the viability of the interpretation. Digital formats ensure that the 'field to publication' process is more streamlined.

In the LTSN-GEES-funded Assynt 3-D visualization project, we used DSM to construct a 3-D computer model of the foreland region to the Moine Thrust Zone and introduced it as a teaching resource in an undergraduate field mapping class. During mapping training, students often have difficulty with visualizing how structures interact with topography to give outcrop patterns, how structures intersect above or below the surface and how to scale observations from a single outcrop to the map scale. The model was created by supplementing existing field data with new GPS-determined contact locations. The geological boundaries were then 'draped' onto a digital elevation model and displayed in 3-D. The models greatly aided the students' understanding of map patterns, the overall 3-D structure and provided a regional context for their mapping. It also provides a basis for a new improved 3-D understanding of the geology of this famous region. This case study illustrates the flexibility and power of the new methodologies not only for teaching but also for research.

Monday 30th June 2003, 11:45 - 12:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

Paper Abstract:

Linking Teaching And Research Within The Bourne Stream Partnership: A Community Based Project

Anita Shah, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Email: ashah@bournemouth.ac.uk
Emma Treby, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Email: etreby@bournemouth.ac.uk

The Bourne Stream Partnership is a consortium of stakeholders, which includes local authorities, the Environment Agency, water companies, English Nature, NGOs and private businesses. The aim of the project is to enhance environmental quality and amenity value of the stream through sustainable development.

Bourne Stream provides a local fieldwork site for undergraduate and postgraduate Environmental & Geographical Science students. Consortium members have provided opportunities for student placements and research projects (up to and including PhD level) based on various aspects of Bourne Stream (i.e. water quality, ecological assessment, community partnership), this in turn has provided useful information for the partnership.

Monday 30th June 2003, 11:45 - 12:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

DAY ONE - Theme: Linking Teaching and Research

Monday 30th June 2003, 13:45 - 14:45 (Brittania Room 1)
Paper Session 2: Linking Teaching and Research (Chair: John Bradbeer, Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth)

Paper Abstract:

Bringing Research Into Teaching Via Project-Based And Teamwork Approaches: How Learners Might Approach Research Frontiers.

Brian Whalley, School of Geography, Queen's University Belfast, Email: b.whalley@qub.ac.uk;
David Favis-Mortlock, School of Geography, Queen's University Belfast, Email: d.favis-mortlock@qub.ac.uk

Our university originally stated that teaching should be 'research-led. The concept was incorporated into the School's university teaching review in 2000 where it was identified as being too staff, rather than student, directed. A re-definition as, 'research informed teaching' gives an iteration which is learner friendly. However, this formal statement says nothing about how we actually bring research into the learning environment. Only the 'brightest' of undergraduates sees a research frontier and, as frontiers extend, this gap widens. Our view is that there is no way we can produce a 'professional geomorphologist' in three years in a Geography Honours programme. Nor, indeed, should we try; to do so would be self-indulgent and, overall, not leave students much the wiser! Accordingly, we have re-developed a module (Applied Geomorphology) to show more distinctly how students can use general and specific research methodologies and methods to help solve problems. 'Research frontiers' may be revealed as students grasp theory and practice along with problem solving. Students can grasp the main techniques and research methods, many of which will be useful in beyond their final year, whether in commerce or postgraduate work. Further, they do need practice identifying and solving diverse problems. The module was first taught in a conventional manner; most lectures in PowerPoint with web-support but moving to a problem-based approach around teams for 2003. Three sessions of face to face teaching were provided each week with PowerPoint notes and support materials on the website but the aim was to get students to take charge of their own learning. Student responses however suggested that this was not liked and that facts were wanted in order to pass exams. Emphasis was placed on teamwork via four problem-based topics (two including presentations) which were part of the overall assessment (50%). The initial number of students registered dropped across the first two weeks. One reason may be that, despite its advantages, teamwork was too unfamiliar territory for some. We think (as do students) that guidance in the use of teamwork needs to be given at an early stage in the university programme so that they can use such skills more effectively through their careers.

Discussion in groups was a component of both teaching and practical work. Some have liked this, some are less enamoured with a largely new approach in their final year. This has become evident from talking to students as well as the use of Critical Incident Questionnaires - used several times in the delivery to ascertain preferences and views. Further, a problem-solving approach, as opposed to learning notes, was also somewhat unfamiliar. In the final semester, many students evidently preferred old methods to something new and unfamiliar. Using presentations to present results was liked by some as were the variety of assessment methods used. However, other students clearly (still) dislike presentations. Overall, student responses were mixed and, although many appreciated the values of the approach taken, the perceived need to learn facts and provide exam answers still seems to be a predominant student attitude.

Monday 30th June 2003, 13:45 - 14:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

Paper Abstract:

Managing The Learning Environment Of An Australian Research Training Programme In The Earth And Environmental Sciences

Patrick James, Cooperative Research Centre for Landscape Environments and Mineral Exploration, University of Adelaide
Email: patrick.james@adelaide.edu.au

The Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Landscape Environments and Mineral Exploration (CRC LEME) is a large and complex research and research training enterprise in the Earth and Environmental Sciences, whose vision is to achieve breakthroughs in mineral exploration and to contribute to environmental management through knowledge of the regolith (the largely altered soil and rock surface covering much of the Australian landscape). CRC LEME has 10 partner institutions, including four Universities, across the southern states of Australia. The principal role of its Education, Training and Communication program is to transfer research technologies and breakthroughs from active research projects to students working in research teams. It also aims to foster an environment of leading edge, technology-driven learning management to its large cohort of undergraduate and postgraduate students scattered across the country. With these aims, the CRC is developing cross-institutional Managed Learning Environment (MLE) interaction strategies for students operating within individual institutions, while it is also incorporating the best practices of the Virtual Learning Environments (VLE's) currently available to support learning in Environmental and Regolith Geoscience.

Monday 30th June 2003, 13:45 - 14:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

Paper Abstract:

Completing The Research Cycle- What Do Students Learn Through Publication?

Jacqueline Potter, Department of Biology, Chester College of Higher Education
Email: j.potter@chester.ac.uk

This case study describes and evaluates the success of Origin: an extra-curricula student research journal. Each year, Origin publishes representative papers by Chester College undergraduates. The journal aims: (i) to offer student authors a realistic experience of publication, and (ii) to disseminate the published work internally, as examples of best practice for all students, and externally, to acknowledge and encourage collaborative links. Student feedback on the experience of publication will be presented and an analysis of the benefits and costs of the approach as a method of linking teaching and research in the undergraduate curriculum.

Monday 30th June 2003, 13:45 - 14:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

Paper Abstract:

Reflection, Alignment And Mineralogy.

Alan Boyle, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Liverpool
Email: apboyle@liverpool.ac.uk

Mineralogy is boring. Well, most level 1 students at the University of Liverpool thought that in 1998. Since then, a 3 year experiment in using multimedia (lectures and web) to deliver material, coupled with continuous refining of subjective and objective assessment tools to improve their alignment with intended learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and understanding) has:

• apparently made mineralogy more interesting;
• demonstrated the utility of multimodal delivery and multimodal assessment;
• demonstrated the need for;
  • "constructive alignment" between aims, outcomes and assessment;
  • reflection on actual outcomes and modification of teaching & assessment accordingly.

Mineralogy needn't be boring!

Monday 30th June 2003, 13:45 - 14:45 (Brittania Room 1)

---

DAY TWO - Undertaking Pedagogic Research: The Teaching/Research Agenda

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1)
Paper Session 3, Group A: Undertaking Pedagogic Research: Fieldwork (Chair: Sue Burkill, Educational Development, University of Plymouth)

Paper Abstract:

Perceptions Of Geography And Environmental Science Fieldwork In The Light Of Foot And Mouth Disease, UK, 2001: What Do Students Really Think?

Ian Fuller, Division of Geography, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne Email: Ian.Fuller@unn.ac.uk
Steve Gaskin, LTSN-GEES Subject Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth Email: sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk
Ian Scott, St Bartholomew School of Nursing and Midwifery, City University, London Email: ian.scott@city.ac.uk

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). This paper reports the key findings of this research, recently published (Fuller et al., 2003). Information on student perception of the value of fieldwork was obtained using Nominal Group Technique (NGT), which was applied to five groups of students from five separate UK Universities. 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 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, for the first time in a rigorous multi-institutional approach, the conception of geography and environmental science fieldwork as being of significant value for the overall student learning experience.

Reference: Fuller, I.C., Gaskin, S. & Scott, I. (2003). 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, 27(1), 79-102.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

---

Paper Abstract:

Technology Before Pedagogy?

Steve Fletcher, School of Maritime and Coastal Studies, Southampton Institute, Email: steve.fletcher@solent.ac.uk
Derek France, Department of Geography, Chester College of Higher Education, Email: d.france@chester.ac.uk
Kate Moore, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Email: mek@leicester.ac.uk
Geoff Robinson, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Email: g.robinson@qaa.ac.uk

As part of a national project on "Enhancing Fieldwork Quality through Pedagogic Research" funded and co-ordinated by the LTSN-GEES, the Fieldwork, Education and Technology (FEeT) sub-group is investigating the relationship between Communication and Information Technology (C&IT) and Fieldwork Education as used in the undergraduate curriculum in Geography, Earth and Environmental Science.

This research involved a postal survey on the use of C&IT in fieldwork teaching and learning, covering all UK Geography, Earth and Environmental Science departments. A thematic one-day workshop was also run, with the aim, via structured participant discussion, of distilling the major themes and impacts of C&IT in fieldwork teaching.

First reflections on the general trend of the participant group discussion suggest that many of the responses were still very technology-biased. In general, the use of C&IT in fieldwork is expanding and becoming increasingly interactive. During field courses, data analysis tends to integrate both primary (student-collected) and secondary (e.g. satellite imagery) data.

Implications for teaching and learning are: - C&IT can provide a platform to extend the learning experience, leading to an independent learning culture; the fundamental basis of using C&IT successfully in fieldwork is that its use must be appropriate.

In conclusion, this research provides valuable evidence suggesting that practitioners use of C&IT is driven by technological developments, rather than new pedagogic thoughts generating novel ways of teaching fieldwork.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

(Also a Poster Display on Day 2, 10:15 - 11:15 in Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Paper Abstract:

Staff Perceptions Of The Role Of Fieldwork In The UK Gees Curriculum

Jim Andrews, School of Ocean & Earth Science, University of Southampton, Email:jra2@soc.soton.ac.uk
Martyn Stewart, Learning Development/School of Biological & Earth Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Email: M.Stewart@livjm.ac.uk
Wendy Sougnez, Educational & Environmental Research, Keswick/Liverpool John Moores University, Email: Wendy@ecss.fsnet.co.uk
Tim Stott, Outdoor & Environmental Education, Liverpool John Moores University, Email: T.A.Stott@livjm.ac.uk
Pauline Kneale, Department of Geography, University of Leeds, Email: p.kneale@geography.leeds.ac.uk

A questionnaire (see poster) and eight semi-structured interviews were carried out across the GEES community to obtain a richer insight into alignment between curriculum objectives, teaching strategies, learning activities, and assessment tasks.

Using NVIVO N6 software, interview responses were categorised into staff perceptions of why we do fieldwork, how do we do it and how effective is it is. Staff appear to have deeply held beliefs regarding the value of fieldwork in educating their students. There is a high level of accord on the aims and role of fieldwork but wide ranges in practice and in assessment procedures. Fieldwork structure and assessment methods are apparently not always well aligned. Fieldwork planning and integration into the curriculum strongly reflect long-established traditions that are deeply embedded in departmental practices. Colleagues report attention to curriculum design in the past 5-6 years coinciding with benchmarking and the advent of QAA academic subject review. Conversely delivery seems less co-ordinated with different styles and practices reflecting the preferences of individual staff.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

(Also a Poster Display on Day 2, 10:15 - 11:15 in Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Paper Abstract:

Fieldwork Is Good? - The Student Experience

Andrew Turner, School of Science and Environment, Coventry University
Email: a.p.turner@coventry.ac.uk

Project members: Alan Boyle, Stacey Conchie, Sarah Maguire, Adrian Martin, Clare Milsom, Rhu Nash, Steve Rawlinson, Andrew Turner, Sheena Wurthmann

The Fieldwork is Good (FIG) project was carried out under the Pedagogic Research and Fieldwork Programme funded by LTSN - GEES. There is an accepted view in the GEES disciplines that fieldwork is “good” however there has been little evidence to substantiate this. The project aimed to monitor changes in student’s attitudes to learning that occurred as a result of attending residential field courses. In addition, the changes in how students value the fieldwork experience were examined and differences in attidudes and values between different groups of students (for example age and gender) explored. The research was conducted using questionniares completed by Geography, Earth and Environmental Science students attending fieldcourses in seven institutions.

The main findings of the work were that students perceive fieldwork as good. After attending fieldcourses there was a positive shift in student perceptions of a range of aspects of group work. In addition, there was an increased feeling of success in academic work and a positive shift in liking challenges in academic work. Students appeared to adopt a deeper approach to learning and had an improved awareness of the importance of fieldwork through hands on experience.

The results of the project have implications on policy and practice. For example, the field courses in this sample were effective in terms of both academic and social integration. As research has shown that academic and social integration aids retention, field courses could be a mechanism for achieving this. Although a third of students felt apprehensive about going on a field course this was not borne out by the field experience. Therefore, student briefing prior to the field course must be considered carefully and it would be useful to get previous students who know the field course to share their experiences. Clearly, field courses in the GEES disciplines should be maintained as they have many positive benefits and their use should be considered in other subject areas.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

(Also a Poster Display on Day 2, 10:15 - 11:15 in Hotel Foyer Area)

---

DAY TWO - Undertaking Pedagogic Research: The Teaching/Research Agenda

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1)
Paper Session 3, Group B: Undertaking Pedagogic Research: Fieldwork (Chair: Sue Burkill, Educational Development, University of Plymouth)

Paper Abstract:

Identification Of Critical Factors In The Successful Progression Of Foundation Level Students In Undergraduate Science

David Harwood, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth
Email: D.Harwood@plymouth.ac.uk

Since 1990, the University of Plymouth has operated a stage zero (foundation) course in the sciences, leading to honours programmes in all of the science subject areas offered by the Faculty of science. This paper reports results from a research project, partially funded by a LTSN Physical Science Subject Centre Development Project grant, in which all of the past 13 years of data relating to former cohorts of the Extended Science Programme were comprehensively analysed. The students had a wide range of incoming qualifications: A level, AGNVQ, AVCE, AS, ONC/D, Access to HE, Pre-Access and a number of students had no prior academic qualifications beyond (or in some cases including) GCSE/O level/ CSE. Data from the university's student perception questionnaire was also analysed.

The results of the analysis indicated that the Extended Science programme worked extremely well and consistently produced graduates with a slightly higher tendency to gain a first or upper second class honours degree, than students entering the university via the conventional A level route. As a package, therefore, the Extended Science course exceeded expectations.

However, this data gave relatively little understanding about which parts of the programme were critical to its success and, more importantly perhaps, which of these were transferable, in particular to the early stages of an undergraduate honours programme. A further questionnaire was developed to investigate this with present and past students from the programme, including graduates. Preliminary results from this exercise are presented and compared with data from a similar age range of students who entered university via the traditional A level route.

Conclusions are drawn which help to influence the way we design learning in the early part of our undergraduate programmes in order to improve retention and successful progression of increasingly diverse entrants to university. The implications for student support are also discussed and the challenges of increasing learner autonomy and their capacity for critical reflection are addressed.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group B

---

Paper Abstract:

Mathematically-Weak Students' Perspectives On The Teaching Of Quantitative Material In The Undergraduate Geography Curriculum

Andrew Folkard, Department of Geography, Lancaster University
Email: a.folkard@lancaster.ac.uk

Results are presented from a series of focus group sessions held at Lancaster University, as an example of practical, problem-specific pedagogic research. Participants consisted of twelve undergraduate geography students chosen from amongst those identified as having strong antipathy towards quantitative material. The intention was to mine these students' perspectives on courses covering quantitative techniques in geography degrees, in order to deduce ways of making such courses more effective. Primary findings are reported, and the value and degree of success of this research are reflected upon.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group B

---

Paper Abstract:

Researching 'Intra'-Preneurship: Case Study Alternatives To Work Placements

Pauline Kneale School of Geography University of Leeds
Email: pauline@geog.leeds.ac.uk

Students need experience of employment, but work placements can be very variable, quality control is difficult and learning outcomes vary widely.
Intrapreneurship is the art of working within an organisation to effect change, by developing new ideas, procedures or products, by innovating practice and thereby enhancing the business. Examples of intrapreneurship in current businesses are researched and outcomes used to create a suite of case
materials highlighting real, current workplace practices. The cases encourage students to:

• realise that they can be creative, innovative, commercially aware, intra-preneurial and self-motivated within businesses and organisations, and
• build confidence in their skills to be 'intra'-prising at work (networking, managing awkward situations, creativity, understanding decision making, negotiation, team working and writing)

The cases make real links with employers, and bring workplace experience to many students consistently.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group B

---

Paper Abstract:

You Always Remember Your First Time - Reflections From Class And Tutor On Their First PBL Experience

Paul Wright, School of Maritime and Coastal Studies, Southampton Institute
Email: paul.wright@solent.ac.uk

This paper documents the first use of PBL as a teaching technique for both tutor and students. Using student feedback and tutor reflection it highlights various learning and teaching issues.

It highlights the reticence of students to take a reflective approach to their own learning. Secondly, it identifies that many students are unwilling to make their learning challenging, thus limiting the progress of PBL. Thirdly, it shows that institutional level support for the tutor is partly the key to successful change in teaching methodology. Finally, it suggests that scholarship is crucial to increase the use and efficacy of PBL.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 09:15 - 10:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group B

---

DAY TWO - Undertaking Pedagogic Research: The Teaching/Research Agenda

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Britannia Room 1)
Paper Session 4, Group A: Undertaking Pedagogic Research (Chair: Lorraine Craig, Research and Higher Education Division, RGS-IBG)

Paper Abstract:

Learning To Do Pedagogic Research In The Disciplines: A UK Partnership Approach

Helen King, LTSN-GEES
Email: hking@plymouth.ac.uk

From 2001 to 2003 the LTSN Subject Centre for Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences (LTSN-GEES) ran a pedagogic research programme entitled "Enhancing the Quality of Fieldwork through undertaking Pedagogic Research". The aim of this programme was to support the development of the capacity of the GEES communities to undertake research into teaching and learning through an experiential learning approach. Participants worked together on four pilot projects focused around the topic of learning and teaching in fieldwork. The findings from these projects are presented elsewhere in this conference. The overall programme (including development workshops) was managed by the LTSN-GEES staff team with the support and guidance of two pedagogic research consultants, Liz Beaty and Glynis Cousin.

The evaluation of the programme was conducted as a research project in its own right: "Learning to do Pedagogic Research". The findings of this evaluation suggest that the programme did succeed in its aim of developing the participants' capacity to undertake discipline-based pedagogic research. The degree to which the discipline-based staff felt both comfortable with, and competent at, carrying out that research seemed to be shaped by the extent to which the educational research methodologies differed from their 'home' disciplinary research cultures. Moreover, developing confidence and competence clearly benefited from them researching issues of concern to their discipline, and the support that they received from educational researchers. The two key features of the programme that facilitated this development, therefore, were 'experiential learning' and 'partnerships', and the overall conclusion is that a collaborative, experiential learning approach facilitated by specialist educational developers is an effective model for raising pedagogic research capacity.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

---

Paper Abstract:

Undergraduate Geography Fieldcourses: Exploring The Learning Experiences Of Students

Claire Cottingham, GEMRU, University of Gloucestershire, Email: cottingham@c2c-uk.com
Mick Healey, GEMRU, University of Gloucestershire , Email: mhealey@glos.ac.uk

Fieldwork is believed by many to promote transferable skills and deeper learning. Many articles have been published describing specific fieldcourses, what is done on them and how the tutors have attempted to meet their objectives, which are mainly written from the staff perspective and say little about the experience of students. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the qualitatively different ways in which students experience the specific learning environment of a fieldcourse. Several examples of the learning experiences are given. The research is based on data collected from twenty-four interviews in two case studies.

The research was based upon a qualitative inquiry using a modified form of phenomenography. Two case studies were conducted to explore the learning experiences of students and what may influence these experiences. The research methods used to explore the learning experiences of students included semi-structured interviews with fieldcourse leaders and open-ended interviews with the students themselves, observation of the student cohorts and teaching and diaries were kept by some students of their learning experiences.

From the research undertaken it is possible to conclude that students' experience of fieldwork vary according to their prior experience of fieldwork, their different learning styles, the course or module relating to the trip, prior understanding of the nature of fieldwork and social factors.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

---

Paper Abstract:

Learning Styles Amoung Geography Undergraduates: An International Comparison

Mick Healey, Email: mhealey@glos.ac.uk
Pauline Kneale, Email: pauline.kneale@goeg.leeds.ac.uk
John Bradbeer, Email: john.bradbeer@ports.ac.uk
with other members of the INLT Learning Styles Group¹

There is a growing interest in identifying the nature and impacts of learning styles of students in higher education. Geography colleagues from 12 university departments in Australia, England, New Zealand and the United States collaborated to research the learning styles of their students. There is disagreement in the literature as to the predominant learning style of geographers (Healey and Jenkins, 2000). An Australian study suggests that they are predominantly, what Kolb (1984) calls, 'accommodators' (Nulty and Barrett, 1996), while an earlier American study found that they were predominantly 'assimilators' (Kolb, 1984).

Over 900 students near the beginning of their geography courses at university completed Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. Overall it is clear that these students are predominantly 'assimilators', 45 per cent of them fall into this category and this is the predominant learning style in all but two universities. Typical characteristics of an assimilator learning style include: ability to create theoretical models, compares alternatives, defines problems, establishes criteria, and formulates hypotheses.

There are, however, significant variations between universities and for the most part intra-national differences are greater than inter-national differences. Moreover, there are students in all the universities in all four types of learning style. Even the least common learning style accounted for 14 per cent of students and was never lower than 9 per cent in any one university.

These findings strongly support the need for us to be aware that in our classes we are likely to have students with the complete range of learning styles and that we should devise learning experiences which utilise the strengths of each of them.

Note

¹ The members of the International Network for the Learning and Teaching of Geography in Higher Education (INLT) Learning Styles Group are:
Australia - Australian National University: Richard Baker; Curtin University: Roy Jones, Alan Pilgrim; Macquarie University: Kevin McCracken
England - University of Gloucestershire: Mick Healey, Andrew Bradley; University of Leeds: Pauline Kneale; University of Portsmouth: John Bradbeer
New Zealand - University of Auckland: Richard Le Heron, Christina Stringer, Melanie Milicich University of Canterbury: Eric Pawson; Waikato University: John Campbell
United States of America - South West Texas University: Michael Solem; Texas A&M University: Robert Bednarz; University of Oregon: Susan Hardwick

References

Healey, M. and Jenkins, A. 2000. Learning cycles and learning styles: Kolb's experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 95: 185-195.
Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Nulty, D.D. and M.A. Barrett 1996. Transitions in students' learning styles. Studies in Higher Education 21(3): 333-345.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

---

Paper Abstract:

'Real World' Experiences? Reflections Of Different Stakeholders On Practitioner Inputs To Environmental Taught Masters Courses.

Lindsey McEwen, University of Gloucestershire
Martin Haigh, Oxford Brookes University
Steve Smith, Coventry University
Email: lmcewn@glos.ac.uk

It is commonly argued that a good way of connecting courses to the world of work is to build the direct involvement of practitioners into the educational process. But is this really beneficial? Research into HEI/ workplace interactions suggests that: students and staff have only partial awareness of what employer's expect or need in terms of key skills at advanced levels; practitioners are variably concerned about and engaging in debates about changes in postgraduate environmental education; and many employers find that 'universities are too remote from the world of work that their students face immediately after graduation' and this has caused graduate unemployment to reach 'unacceptable levels'.

The outcomes from pedagogic research that evaluates the best ways to integrate different types of work-based learning into vocational university courses have an important contribution to play in establishing the learning outcomes best delivered by different types of practitioner engagement. Previous research has, however, mainly focused on practitioner involvement in undergraduate courses. The current paper reports the findings from an LTSN-GEES funded, multi-institution pilot study that has investigated the strengths and limitations of different types of practitioner engagement on three vocationally-oriented environmental Masters courses. These courses possess strong links between university study and the 'world of work' by working closely with practitioners. The paper evaluates how vocational environmental degrees can prepare postgraduate students effectively for the demands of the workplace. The methodology for the study is outlined and critiqued. The perceptions, inputs and expected outcomes of practitioner engagement among different stakeholders (current students, past students, teaching staff and practitioners) are compared. The paper briefly explores synergies and conflicts in stakeholder expectations, debates tentative models of good practice on the basis of this pilot evidence and sets out future research agendas.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Britannia Room 1) Group A

---

DAY TWO - Undertaking Pedagogic Research: The Teaching/Research Agenda

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Blenheim Suite)
Paper Session 4, Group B: Undertaking Pedagogic Research (Chair: Steve Gaskin, LTSN-GEES)

Paper Abstract:

An Examination Of The Effects Of Teaching/ Learning Methods On Student-Understanding Of Value Laden Issues.

Thérèse Kennedy Doyle¹, Email: Teresa.m.Kennedy@may.ie
Shelagh Waddington¹,², Email: Shelagh.Waddington@may.ie
¹ Department of Geography, National University of Ireland
² National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis, Ireland

Results of an investigation into the possible effects of the use of interactive teaching/learning on the changing understanding of development issues are presented. The study involved an examination of initial understanding of development and of previous teaching/ learning experiences. The planned outcomes of the work include the identification of methods for developing awareness and the exploration of the way in which understanding is affected by experiences both in the class room and in a broader context. Work is on-going and the paper will report on the most recent outcomes and their potential incorporation into the research.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Blenheim Suite) Group B

---

Paper Abstract:

Teaching Higher Education In A Further Education Environment: Issues And Perspectives

June Harwood, Educational Development, University of Plymouth, Email: J.Harwood@plymouth.ac.uk
David Harwood, Institute for Science Education, University of Plymouth, Email: D.Harwood@plymouth.ac.uk

This paper comprises a summary of research into the teaching of higher education courses in further education learning environments. A comprehensive study of college management and teaching staff attitudes together with teaching practices, pedagogy and research was carried out with five partner colleges of the University of Plymouth where a substantial amount of HE teaching was delivered. A questionnaire was developed, piloted and distributed to all staff teaching HE in the colleges with a similar but separate questionnaire being used for management.

We present data relating to the differences in teaching practice and pedagogy between FE and HE teaching and the problems of realising these in FE learning environments. We also look at the ways in which independent study and critical reflection among learners are developed. The questions of research and scholarly activity and their relevance to HE levels 1 and 2 are addressed. Considerable challenges are faced by staff teaching mainly FE courses, on standard FE teaching contracts, being expected to deliver HE courses effectively. We also consider the challenges of delivering "a real HE experience" in FE environments and those involved with going on to university afterwards.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Blenheim Suite) Group B

---

Paper Abstract:

Developing Collaborations Between Learning Scientists And Geoscience Educators In The United States

Cathryn Manduca, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, USA Email: cmanduca@carleton.edu

Partnerships between cognitive scientists, educational researchers and geoscience educators are an essential aspect of research on learning in the geosciences. To enhance communication among these groups and to foster increased research on aspects of learning that are fundamental to the geosciences, 24 leaders from these groups met in summer 2002 to articulate a research agenda and plan for action. Recommended activities include dissemination of existing research with geoscience examples, research collaborations, opportunities for extended interaction among geoscience educators and learning sciences, and projects that engage faculty in researching student learning.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Blenheim Suite) Group B

---

Paper Abstract:

The Vertical Project

Sheena Wurthmann, School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University Email: I.S.Wurthmann@gcal.ac.uk
Sarah Maguire, Staff Development, University of Ulster Email: cs.maguire@ulst.ac.uk

At Glasgow Caledonian University there is a strong emphasis on careers and employment. In the postgraduate taught programme students are offered the opportunity to work on a large scale group project such as catchment management planning or open space audit for a local authority. The success of this approach encouraged the development team for the undergraduate programme to utilise the group project idea to provide skills in teamwork and experience of practice based problems.

The Vertical Project uses students at all levels of the undergraduate programme to work together on a range of projects. This paper will look at the organisation and management of the project; the student learning and the skills developed in relation to the current discussion of employability skills; the assessment of the group and the individual is considered. The future use of this approach in other institutions and programmes is explored.

The Vertical Project was developed before the research of constructive alignment but is seen as an example of this philosophy in operation.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 11:15 - 12:15 (Blenheim Suite) Group B

---

DAY TWO - Undertaking Pedagogic Research: The Teaching/Research Agenda

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 Formal Poster Viewing (Hotel Foyer Area)

Poster Abstract:

Undergraduate Geographers' Conceptions Of Learning, Teaching And Geography: Some Findings From An International Study

John Bradbeer, University of Portsmouth
Mick Healey, University of Gloucestershire
Pauline Kneale, University of Leeds
Email address of lead author: john.bradbeer@port.ac.uk

This is a report of work done by a team from the INLTGHE. Students in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and the UK took part. They were asked to write short statements about their understanding of learning, teaching and geography. These statements were analysed using phenomenography. The poster displays the conceptions found and discusses their relationships and possible implications for curriculum design and learning and teaching practice.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Problem-Based Learning And Environmental Management

John Bradbeer, Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth
Email: john.bradbeer@port.ac.uk

This reports the use of problem-based learning in a 20 credit level two option unit with over 40 students. The unit does not use the classic tutorial in problem-based learning as numbers are too great but instead uses a tutorless group approach with students in groups of four. The poster outlines the usual learning and teaching pattern adopted in the fortnightly cycle of cases. Some details are given of the cases used and there is an evaluation and reflection upon the programme as run in semester 2 2002/3.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Encouraging Publication Of Research Conducted On Taught Postgraduate Courses.

Anita Shah, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, E-mail: ashah@bournemouth.ac.uk
Eunice Pinn, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, E-mail: epinn@bournemouth.ac.uk

The research project is usually a crucial part of taught postgraduate courses. It allows students to conduct independent work and demonstrate higher-order skills at Masters level.

The research project for the MSc Coastal Zone Management programme is assessed through a project report (traditional dissertation) and working paper (proposed journal article). This latter piece of work can then form the first draft of an article that may be submitted to a suitable journal following appropriate modifications and amendments. Through this route, research in the field of Coastal Zone Management can be disseminated and be a favourable addition to student CVs.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Evaluating A Student Group Project To Create A Geographic Information System

Krystyna Brown, School of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England
Email: Krystyna.Brown@uwe.ac.uk

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are increasingly contributing to student projects and dissertations. In this project students formulated their own geographical problem involving spatial data, which had to be answered using a GIS. The evaluation was to investigate what could be learnt from their experience which would help future groups of students to carry out the tasks more effectively and so progress to greater levels of insights.

A questionnaire and focus groups were used. The questionnaire sought to establish what types of spatial data were used, what GIS processes were employed in the analysis and the nature of their results. Focus groups investigated which aspects of the project the participants found interesting and where they identified the greatest challenges and difficulties. The poster will include examples from the projects.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

How Does The Removal Of Fieldwork From Academic Programmes In The Gees Disciplines Impact On Learning And Teaching?

Ian Scott, St Barts School of Nursing and Midwifery, City University;
Ian Fuller Division of Geography, University of Northumbria
Steve Gaskin, LTSN-GEES
Email: I.Scott@city.ac.uk

This research investigates how students and staff view the use of fieldwork as a teaching and learning tool in Geography / Environmental Science degree programmes from five UK Universities. The research focuses on whether the absence of fieldwork due to the restrictions caused by Foot and Mouth affected:

• student module grades
• student perceptions of the learning environment
• staff perceptions of the learning environment

Results suggest that student module grades were not significantly affected by the withdrawal of fieldwork. This outcome may reflect compensatory assessment mechanisms employed by staff. Focus group analysis of student perceptions identified the most important perceived benefits of fieldwork as being experience of geographical reality, developing subject knowledge, acquiring technical, transferable and holistic skills, and working with peers and lecturers. As such, students find fieldwork a highly rewarding and valued experience and they perceived that the loss of fieldwork impacted on their academic performance.

Interview (semi structured) based analysis of staff perceptions revealed that staff did not discuss fieldwork in terms of experiential learning, although it was commented that it allowed a different type of learning. Some staff also cited the importance of "being there". Staff did not believe that the absence of fieldwork led to a reduction in the students' grades; this was thought to be because the absence of field work was "taken into account" when marking scripts, and furthermore they did not feel that the absence of fieldwork impacted on theory-based modules. Both staff and students at all five institutions concur that the main use of field work is to enable theory to be put in context and for the teaching of "subject specific practical skills".

Negatively, students perceived fieldwork to be more time consuming than other modes of learning. Staff also commented that the time, cost and modularity were the biggest barriers to the expansion of fieldwork. Most commented on the need to achieve a balance between fieldwork and theory.
Activities used to substitute withdrawn fieldwork were not considered by staff to provide a suitable replacement for fieldwork. Some however, found that they had "discovered" and explored new (at least to them) techniques which might be of use in the future. However, few staff considered using "virtual" fieldwork.

Students and staff alike clearly find fieldwork a highly valued teaching and learning experience. Staff clearly have a strong emotional attachment to fieldwork and indeed this could have influenced the objectivity of their responses, although it appears that students regard fieldwork as more important to their learning than do staff, and that students felt disadvantages in ways that were not entirely obvious to staff.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Chichester Harbour: A Model For Integrated Environmental Management, Teaching And Research.

Colin Bailey, Centre for Environmental Management, School of Applied and Health Sciences , Farnborough College
Email: c.bailey@farn-ct.ac.uk

The 'hands-on' approach to teaching environmental management has always been a feature of Farnborough programmes. All (FdSc/BSc/MSc) include a substantial element of field work (single days and residential weeks), problem solving, industry experience and individual research. Staff research is primarily focussed on applied problem solving for industry clients and is used extensively as case studies in lectures. Students are encouraged to develop individual research in collaboration with lecturers and industrial supervisors to solve real problems and in the process engender 'deep learning'.

The management of Chichester Harbour has been used extensively in this way to provide case study material, field work sites, industry experience and research problems for students for more than a decade and demonstrates how complex problems of environmental management require an integrated multi-disciplinary approach.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Technology Before Pedagogy?

Steve Fletcher, School of Maritime and Coastal Studies, Southampton Institute, Email: steve.fletcher@solent.ac.uk
Derek France, Department of Geography, Chester College of Higher Education, Email: d.france@chester.ac.uk
Kate Moore, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Email: mek@leicester.ac.uk
Geoff Robinson, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Email: g.robinson@qaa.ac.uk

As part of a national project on "Enhancing Fieldwork Quality through Pedagogic Research" funded and co-ordinated by the LTSN-GEES, the Fieldwork, Education and Technology (FEeT) sub-group is investigating the relationship between Communication and Information Technology (C&IT) and Fieldwork Education as used in the undergraduate curriculum in Geography, Earth and Environmental Science.

This research involved a postal survey on the use of C&IT in fieldwork teaching and learning, covering all UK Geography, Earth and Environmental Science departments. A thematic one-day workshop was also run, with the aim, via structured participant discussion, of distilling the major themes and impacts of C&IT in fieldwork teaching.

First reflections on the general trend of the participant group discussion suggest that many of the responses were still very technology-biased. In general, the use of C&IT in fieldwork is expanding and becoming increasingly interactive. During field courses, data analysis tends to integrate both primary (student-collected) and secondary (e.g. satellite imagery) data.

Implications for teaching and learning are: - C&IT can provide a platform to extend the learning experience, leading to an independent learning culture; the fundamental basis of using C&IT successfully in fieldwork is that its use must be appropriate.

In conclusion, this research provides valuable evidence suggesting that practitioners use of C&IT is driven by technological developments, rather than new pedagogic thoughts generating novel ways of teaching fieldwork.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

(Also a Paper Presentation on Day 2, Paper Session 3, Group A, 09:15-10:15am, Brittania Room)

---

Poster Abstract:

Staff Perceptions Of The Role Of Fieldwork In The UK Gees Curriculum

Jim Andrews, School of Ocean & Earth Science, University of Southampton, Email:jra2@soc.soton.ac.uk
Martyn Stewart, Learning Development/School of Biological & Earth Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Email: M.Stewart@livjm.ac.uk
Wendy Sougnez, Educational & Environmental Research, Keswick/Liverpool John Moores University, Email: Wendy@ecss.fsnet.co.uk
Tim Stott, Outdoor & Environmental Education, Liverpool John Moores University, Email: T.A.Stott@livjm.ac.uk
Pauline Kneale, Department of Geography, University of Leeds, Email: p.kneale@geography.leeds.ac.uk

A questionnaire (see poster) and eight semi-structured interviews were carried out across the GEES community to obtain a richer insight into alignment between curriculum objectives, teaching strategies, learning activities, and assessment tasks.

Using NVIVO N6 software, interview responses were categorised into staff perceptions of why we do fieldwork, how do we do it and how effective is it is. Staff appear to have deeply held beliefs regarding the value of fieldwork in educating their students. There is a high level of accord on the aims and role of fieldwork but wide ranges in practice and in assessment procedures. Fieldwork structure and assessment methods are apparently not always well aligned. Fieldwork planning and integration into the curriculum strongly reflect long-established traditions that are deeply embedded in departmental practices. Colleagues report attention to curriculum design in the past 5-6 years coinciding with benchmarking and the advent of QAA academic subject review. Conversely delivery seems less co-ordinated with different styles and practices reflecting the preferences of individual staff.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

(Also a Paper Presentation on Day 2, Paper Session 3, Group A, 09:15-10:15am, Brittania Room)

---

Poster Abstract:

Fieldwork Is Good? - The Student Experience

Andrew Turner, School of Science and Environment, Coventry University
Email: a.p.turner@coventry.ac.uk

Project members: Alan Boyle, Stacey Conchie, Sarah Maguire, Adrian Martin, Clare Milsom, Rhu Nash, Steve Rawlinson, Andrew Turner, Sheena Wurthmann

The Fieldwork is Good (FIG) project was carried out under the Pedagogic Research and Fieldwork Programme funded by LTSN - GEES. There is an accepted view in the GEES disciplines that fieldwork is “good” however there has been little evidence to substantiate this. The project aimed to monitor changes in student’s attitudes to learning that occurred as a result of attending residential field courses. In addition, the changes in how students value the fieldwork experience were examined and differences in attidudes and values between different groups of students (for example age and gender) explored. The research was conducted using questionniares completed by Geography, Earth and Environmental Science students attending fieldcourses in seven institutions.

The main findings of the work were that students perceive fieldwork as good. After attending fieldcourses there was a positive shift in student perceptions of a range of aspects of group work. In addition, there was an increased feeling of success in academic work and a positive shift in liking challenges in academic work. Students appeared to adopt a deeper approach to learning and had an improved awareness of the importance of fieldwork through hands on experience.

The results of the project have implications on policy and practice. For example, the field courses in this sample were effective in terms of both academic and social integration. As research has shown that academic and social integration aids retention, field courses could be a mechanism for achieving this. Although a third of students felt apprehensive about going on a field course this was not borne out by the field experience. Therefore, student briefing prior to the field course must be considered carefully and it would be useful to get previous students who know the field course to share their experiences. Clearly, field courses in the GEES disciplines should be maintained as they have many positive benefits and their use should be considered in other subject areas.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

(Also a Paper Presentation on Day 2, Paper Session 3, Group A, 09:15-10:15am, Brittania Room)

---

Poster Abstract:

LTSN-GEES Teaching and Research Linkages Project Group Linking Teaching and Research in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES)

Mick Healey, GEMRU, University of Gloucestershire (on behalf of LTSN-GEES Teaching and Research Linkage Project)
Email: mhealey@glos.ac.uk

This poster outlines the main deliverables, processes and disciplinary understanding of the teaching-research linkage from an LTSN-GEES project. It includes five brief summaries of a range of ways in which GEES departments from around the world are developing the linkage.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Linking Teaching, Research And Work-Related Learning Through Fieldwork: One Stone, Many Birds.

David Higgitt, Department of Geography, University of Durham
Email: d.l.higgitt@durham.ac.uk

Fieldwork and is frequently presented as an essential and effective learning environment. It is at the heart of the Quality Assurance Agency's Subject Benchmarking Statement in Geography, which regards fieldwork as "an essential element of the engagement [with the outside world]". Yet despite the voluminous literature on evaluation and description of fieldwork practice and in spite of the significant expenditure on fieldwork activities by UK Geography Departments, there has been little attempt to ascertain whether the fieldwork is as effective as it is claimed. Exposing students to field situations is not, in itself, sufficient to optimise modes of enquiry. It is easy for an academic geographer to justify fieldwork on the basis that it is what geography is all about, but what do we know about student expectations of fieldwork and how can we use this to consolidate links with research and work experience? Reflecting on how students learn during fieldwork has enabled the format of a particular fieldwork module to be adapted over time to service multiple learning opportunities. The module in question (Geomorphology of Drylands) was designed in 1995 incorporating a field trip within an elective module - something that was rather novel in the particular institutional context. The main driver in curriculum design was the creation of conditions for students to design and execute a research project. The format simulated applied research where the project teams have to establish procedures and produce results in a relatively short time. The emphasis on linking the fieldtrip to research had some additional (and partly unexpected) benefits. The ability to design and execute the project, though originally aimed at dissertation training, depended on the efficiency of the project teams. Surveys of former students reveal that the dynamics of group projects provided numerous skills that have proved beneficial in subsequent work situations. Students' preconceptions about the role of fieldwork primarily as a means of illustrating real world examples and learning specific techniques are replaced by recognition of generic research issues and of the importance of working within groups.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

An Induction Field Course And Its Magic

Sheena Wurthmann, School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University
Andrew Turner, School of Sciences and the Environment, Coventry University
Alan Boyle, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Liverpool
Sarah Maguire, Staff Development, University of Ulster
Adrian Martin Department of Geography & Enviornmental Sciences, De Montford University
Clare Milson, School of Biological & Earth Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University
Rhu Nash, School of Maritime & Coastal Studies, Southampton Institute
Steve Rawlinson, School of Education, University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Email: a.p.turner@coventry.ac.uk

When the group looking at "Fieldwork is Good" developed their research we had some ideas of what we would find. We discovered as a result of our investigations some additional pieces of evidence to support the banner that "Fieldwork is Good". One of these was the value of a field course at the outset of a degree programme in the discipline areas. Individually we had anecdotal evidence from student evaluations and reports but the numbers did not allow for statistical analysis or wider generalisation. The result showed that the early residential experience helps the students make the transition to Higher Education. It develops the social network and establishes work patterns that help students in their undergraduate studies.

This work matches research, such as Salmon (2002) and Yorke (2003), which shows that students need to have social contact and comfort to support the academic process. The current practice in e-learning and in other disciplines encourages the GEES disciplines to consider wider use of field work to support student learning and integration into Higher Education.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Poster Abstract:

Linking Teaching And Research In The Biosciences

Heather Sears and Ed Wood, Learning and Teaching Support Network Centre for Bioscience
Email: h.j.sears@leeds.ac.uk

There is a strong tradition across the Biosciences of linking research with teaching and evidence that students value and are motivated by the experience of studying in a research-rich environment. LTSN Bioscience is one of the partner Subject Centres in the LTSN Generic Centre led 'Linking Teaching and Research in the Disciplines' project. One aim of this project is to collect and share examples of how colleagues are creating links between research and teaching. The poster will contain examples of how practitioners are linking research and teaching in bioscience disciplines.

Tuesday 1st July 2003, 10:15 - 11:15 (Hotel Foyer Area)

---

Good Practice Summaries

Summary Abstract:

Research And Teaching On A Graduate Methods Course

Philip Crang, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London
Email: p.crang@rhul.ac.uk

The MA Cultural Geography (Research) is a one year taught Masters programme that seeks to combine substantive specialisation with a broadly based research training for graduate students. The programme has always been 'recognised' by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), most recently acting as one of two first year pathways in our 1+3 Human Geography postgraduate degree programme. About half the students leaving the programme progress to doctoral research; about half use the degree as a more specialised qualification to complement their generalist undergraduate degree. The programme is both a joy to teach on and central to our development of an internationally recognised school of graduate research students.

Like many Human Geography 'research training' programmes, one problem we face is how to teach the methods and techniques specified by the ESRC as essential to any research training programme in Human Geography when most of these will already have been the subject matter of students' undergraduate techniques courses. Our solution has been to replace sessions that review the standard literatures on the strengths, weaknesses and practices of particular methods with workshops that immerse students in the particular research practices and issues of recent or on-going research in the department. This allows students to work hands on with materials (so, for example, we don't talk about qualitative data analysis in the abstract, instead students work on full transcripts from on-going research projects), provides a sense of issues being confronted in context (so issues of positionality and reflexivity are addressed through students revisiting past research of their own), and inducts students into the research cultures of the department.

A second issue is assessment requirements. In order to signal the place of students in our research community, the course is assessed using methods very similar to those of peer review within academia. There are no examinations. 50% of the overall assessment is counted for by students' independent dissertations. More generally, students fashion their own sense of what they want to write about. For example, in the element concerned with 'contemporary cultural geographies', students discuss with staff the 'term papers' they want to produce, looking to review what they understand as important research trends and agendas rather than responding to pre-set questions. These papers are also 'formatively' assessed in the same way that research outputs are. Students submit a draft of their paper and then receive formative feedback before choosing whether to revise that paper for final summative assessment. We try hard to institute a research culture in which the dialogue of ideas is more important than the allocation of a grade, though wider developments such as the need for generic marking criteria have made this harder.

In this relatively small programme, then, we have the luxury of uniting research and teaching not only in terms of content but also in terms of the social and textual forms of intellectual engagement, judgement and debate. But, potentially, will the imposition of an audit culture distanced from research make this increasingly difficult?

---

Summary Abstract

Interactive Learning In Physical Geography Lectures: Techniques And Results

Scott Elias, Geography Department, Royal Holloway, University of London
E-mail: s.elias@rhul.ac.uk

Interactive learning can be a challenging element to add to a university lecture course. Many lecturers are used to delivering their lectures without interruption from the audience, or, at best, are willing to take questions at the end of the lecture (time permitting). However, student attention spans are not often sustained through a traditional lecture period of 50-120 minutes, and even the most engaging lectures may not cause students to actively think about the topic at hand. This can only be achieved through student interaction with the lecturer and with other students. During the past three years, I have adopted a variety of interactive techniques to boost student engagement with my lecture material, and to stimulate student thought during lectures. The simplest of these techniques is simply to stop in the middle of a lecture, and pose a question to the students. At first, my students were uneasy with this, and were very reticent to respond. However, I made it clear to them that the lecture would not continue until someone had answered my question. I craft these questions in advance, with the aim of stimulating discussion, rather than as a test of student knowledge. For instance, during the introductory lecture in my course, 'People and the Ice Age,' I pose the question, 'If you lived here in England 15,000 years ago, what do you think you would have to do to survive?' This question engages the students in the topic of Pleistocene life styles, and it sets the tone for the course, which deals in large part with human adaptation to ice-age environments in various parts of the world. A second interactive technique I employ is to stop my lecture at 2-3 points, and ask groups of students (2-4 per group) to talk amongst themselves for a few minutes, and come up with a question they would like to ask, or a point they would like clarified. This is a less threatening approach than asking individuals to do the same, and, again, it stimulates student thought on the lecture topic. A third technique I use is to stop 2-3 times during a lecture, and ask students to read the notes of the person sitting next to them, to gain a better understanding of the lecture by considering someone else's perspective on what has been said in the lecture. Before the class begins, I warn the students that they will be showing their lecture notes to other students. This helps them avoid embarrassment, and probably serves to make them better note-takers. As I have increased the use of these interactive techniques, the student course assessment scores have improved year by year. For instance, in the category of 'Encourages questioning/student participation,' my scores have been 4.16 (yr 1), 4.3 (yr 2), and 4.64 (yr 3) (5-point scale).

---

Summary Abstract:

An Advanced Certificate In Geochemistry By Distance Learning

Karen Hudson-Edwards, School of Earth Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London
Email: k.hudson-edwards@geology.bbk.ac.uk

The School of Earth Sciences at Birkbeck, University of London, has long and successful experience in delivering undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in Geology. Since October 2002, the School has partnered the University of London External Programme to develop, market and run four courses and a project for an Advanced Certificate in Geochemistry that will commence in October 2004. The delivery method, which uses Adobe Acrobat Reader with files provided on a CD and supported by web-based tutoring, means that students can (a) access the course material using state-of-the-art, but free software; (b) have access to large amounts of photographic and graphic material rapidly, without the problems of large file sizes associated with web-based access; (c) study the material offline (for example using a laptop computer during travel or where web access is unavailable) without the expense of telephone bills; (d) have ready access to the course tutor through e-mail or web-based information when necessary.

The course will provide a distance learning opportunity for those interested in Geochemistry in a professional or amateur capacity. The course will commence with an introductory level course stating the basic tenets of Geochemistry. Three advanced courses (Chemistry of the Earth's Surface Environment, Hydrogeology and Pollution, Geochemical Data and Analysis) will provide detailed reviews of topics in geochemistry that are essential for students working in the environmental, minerals or financial industries, but are also of general interest. A project, which can be undertaken either in the laboratory or by study of a CD-based or other research database, will provide practical experience of applying knowledge gained during the theory courses to scientific problem solving in the Earth Sciences.

The following are being carried out to ensure that content retention and deep learning are achieved by the students:

• inclusion of self-assessment activities such as balancing chemical formulae and solving mathematical problems;
• development of a Web interface where email tutorials can be run to create a 'social' interface;
• inclusion of interactive video clips of atomic concepts, laboratory experiments and field locations to back up written lecture material;
• inclusion of practical assignments for formative assessment and feedback;
• inclusion of a short summary section at the end of each lecture so that students can review the material; and
• inclusion of 'extra reading' lists, comprising books, journal articles and Web sites, at the end of each lecture so that the students can follow up and reinforce the lecture material.

---

Summary Abstract:

An 'In Memoriam' Exercise

Margaret Harrison, School of Environment, University of Gloucestershire
Email: mharrison@glos.ac.uk

Society, Space and Social Science is a compulsory human geography module at the University of Gloucestershire. The module aims to place human geography in the wider social sciences as well as provide students with an understanding of the changing nature of geography. Some members of the module teaching team* have research interests in the historical development of geography. To this end staff are eager to illustrate to students how research can and does inform teaching and that some research and literature searches can be fascinating and illuminating.

It is recognised by staff in the School of Environment that many students can find a philosophical module on the development of the discipline both challenging and perceive it as possibly un-related to other modules they are studying. In an attempt to make the module Society, Space and Social Science more attractive and different, the teaching team introduced an 'In memoriam' exercise. The aim of the exercise is to learn about the contribution of one key person to the development of geography. The teaching team believes that by personalising one element of module content students should gain an understanding of one specific individual, an awareness of context, and an appreciation of the concepts, theories and ideas expounded by the person. The exercise forms part of the summative assessment of the module, and student groups are required to produce one written 'In memoriam' as well as give a brief presentation on the person to the rest of the class. Prior to the introduction of the exercise students received a short series of lectures on the 'founding fathers' of geography; these were criticised for being boring and irrelevant.

Gains:

• The exercise requires students to work in small groups and has the potential for them to assemble a great deal of material on a particular person;
• Most students enjoy the exercise (evaluation of the exercise confirm this); students become detectives and often explore different angles to obtain information in an attempt to understand their person;
• At best, a group will appreciate how the concepts and theories of one person have influenced other geographers.

Losses:

• Some student groups can focus too much on the person and their personal life and thus the 'In memoriam' lacks geographic detail;
• Trying to find accessible literature on some leading geographers can be more difficult than for others;
• Each student will gain expert knowledge on one person but possibly fail to gain an overview of other key geographers.

Overall impression:

This exercise does give students an opportunity to study the development of the discipline through the lens of key people. Using the 'In memoriam' idea as an example, students are encouraged to consider and appreciate the role of leading contemporary academics and researchers in shaping the discipline.

Teaching team normally consists of Iain Robertson, Andrew Charlesworth and Margaret Harrison

---

Summary Abstract:

Student-Led Competitive Research Proposal Exercise Linking Teaching And Research

Geoffrey E. Batt, Geology Department, Royal Holloway University of London
Email: g.batt@gl.rhul.ac.uk

What was the initial prompt/problem?

Students are aware that we are engaged in both teaching and research, but outside those few highly motivated individuals who seek out opportunities to participate in active research projects or laboratory work under their own initiative, few students gain experience with how these two facets of our work interact and how the scientific research process works. One approach which I have found helpful in this regard is the development of a laboratory exercise structured around the planning of a research campaign.

What is the practice trying to achieve?

This exercise aims build an understanding in students of the practical issues involved in constructing a research programme - particularly the allocation of resources, the forward planning and justification of resource use required, and the competitive nature of funding.

How were practices changed?

The exercise is based around planning a remote sensing mapping study and supporting ground-truthing work in the field. Rather than providing or proscribing the resources to be used however, students, working in small groups, are instead given only the aims of the work and the specific funding limits, and directed to prepare a detailed competitive proposal for the work to be carried out. At the end of the exercise, the groups then present their proposals to the class and must defend their plans and resource allocations to their peers.

What are the gains and losses?

Most students in the department will be involved in some form of research project or independent investigation during their degree programme, and understanding the need to target and justify the use of resources contributes to their entering such work with more mature and pragmatic visions of how to conduct independent research. This has shown through clearly in the form of

The exercise also contributes to the departmental learning objective of developing skills in teamwork - both directly through the group-based nature of the exercise, and through consideration how the proposed work plan can best integrate the skills and resources of each member of the team to achieve their research goal. This aspect of the project is brought out particularly well by the students seeing multiple permutations of such group dynamics in respect of the project in the final presentation of plans to the class, and being encouraged to critically evaluate these matters.

What is lost in the exercise is primarily time: it requires a lengthy investment of this most precious of teaching resources, particularly with the class presentation and defence of plans. This aspect of the exercise plays a vital role in the development of student understanding of practical research considerations however, by showing how a project can be tackled in many different ways and encouraging them to critically evaluate plans, and should not be sacrificed. I have found this time-intensive nature to be partially offset by the competitive, group-based nature of the exercise. Students have explicitly commented in course evaluations that the internal dynamics of the group setting and the perceived competition with their peers to produce the 'best' plan encouraged extensive effort and work outside class time.