Discussion Area for INLT Post-IGC Workshop paper on Fieldwork

read paper - Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives

For the discussion to work we need people to engage with it. We hope therefore that you will plan to visit the Web site every few days during the discussion period and contribute your views. Above all we should aim for the discussion to be stimulating and enjoyable.

In making your comments, please phrase the majority of them as discussion points, expressing viewpoints, and raising questions to encourage other colleagues to respond. These comments should be addressed to all the delegates and not just the authors. You may also like to make some suggestions to the authors about additional points and references that they might consider including.

Authors are encouraged to join in the debate of their own papers by responding to issues raised and clarifying their own views.

To join the discussion simply send your comments by email to Mike Sanders (masanders@plymouth.ac.uk) who will add them to the appropriate area of this webpage. Here are some guidelines when submitting comments.

• If responding to a comment please remember to indicate which comment you are responding to in your email (e.g. you may wish to use "Re: subject")
• If you are posting a new comment please give your comment a title or subject
• We will not display your email address with your comments unless you indicate in your email that you are happy for us to do so

Many thanks for your input

Comments / Threads So Far

1. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Mick Healey)
2. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Hans de Jong)
3. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Janice Monk)
4. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Eric Pawson)
5. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Brian Chalkley)
6. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Ruth Healey)
7. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Paul Rooney)
8. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Michael Solem)
   1. Re Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Michael Sanders)
9. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Karl Donert)
10. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Artimus Keiffer)
11. Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives (from Sue Vajoczki)

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Mick Healey - University of Gloucestershire, UK
Date: 20 July 2004
Posting: Congratulations on such an extensive coverage in the short time you have had to put this outline draft together. You do a good job of bringing together some interesting comparisons about the nature and organisation of fieldwork in different countries. Here, however, may also lie a problem. Are you over ambitious in the range of topics covered? It may be sensible to cover fewer topics / issues in greater depth.

Care needs to be taken with international comparisons because of the variety of ways in which geography figures in the curriculum. This point applies to all the INLT papers. For example, whereas the single hons geography degree programme is common in the UK, in Australasia and North America joint non-honours degree programmes predominate. The place of fieldwork in these different degree programme structures is worth exploring. Whereas a geography fieldwork module / course may be common in the UK, I get the impression from the paper and the useful table on fieldwork in New Zealand at the back that fieldwork is integrated into particular substantive modules / courses.

There is room to stand back from some of the claims made for the benefits of fieldwork and critically review the evidence which supports these claims. It is an area where there is a lot of assertion and belief, but not an over abundance of evidence. In particular, more attention could usefully be given to student learning which, though listed as the final topic to be covered on p1, is not dealt with separately.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Hans de Jong - Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: 23 July 2004
Posting: Fieldwork is very important for education in geography on all levels. It is an invitation for pupils and students to get an impression of the complexity, but also the possibility to unravel the reality, of geography. An advantage of fieldwork is that it makes geography a practical subject.
One of the most important skills in geography, cartography, can be exercised easily during fieldwork. Advantage of this skill is that human and physical geography can be easily combined during exercises in cartography.
Problem for teaching fieldwork is the big difference between the situations and present problems in various regions. Especially for authors of school books it is difficult to write texts for doing fieldwork which can be used in different regions. In The Netherlands we have some experience in such writing which has been proved to be most successful.
Another problem is the high costs for pupils and students to do fieldwork, especially for travelling. In The Netherlands we have two solutions for it:
- we promote doing fieldwork in the own environment of the pupil or student;
- students from 18 years on have a year subscription for public transport; with this ticket students have no costs to travel through The Netherlands and with some inventiveness the teacher can visit with the students places through the whole country.
For these reasons it is normal that students in higher education have once a week a fieldwork practice during their study. In this way there is no need to make a distinction between human and physical geography.
Most fieldwork activities are chosen for subjects about living, working, tourism, agriculture, historical geography, landscape development and geomorphology but mostly are two or more of these subjects integrated.
The result is that on the one hand there are a lot of possibilities for pupils and students to do fieldwork but on the other hand problems with organising fieldwork are for a lot of teachers so big that they do not perform the possibilities they have. For this reason it is necessary to promote fieldwork and to give teachers schooling in fieldwork practice.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Janice Monk (University of Arizona, USA)
Date: 25 July 2004
Posting: As I work my way through the papers, I am struck by the extent to which the issue of the changing context of higher education in relation to the state,permeates or at least is raised, across most pieces. Perhaps we should have some space for reflection on the cross-cutting themes, as well as discussion of individual papers.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Eric Pawson - University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: 30 July 2004
Posting: This paper certainly manages to get a range of international perspectives, but at the same time it seems often (not wholly) concerned with a rather narrow definition of what constitutes fieldwork. The term often used is 'field course', or 'residential fieldwork'. It may be that fieldwork provision in physical geography in some places is still field course or residential: the paper puts some emphasis on field work in physical geography and I wonder if this is because of the definition of fieldwork used?

There are a whole range of fieldwork methods, many in use in human geography, that are not residential or field course format: such things as streetwork and trails, for example (Livingstone et al 1999). My own department shows up in table 1 as having only two courses with fieldwork: those that show up on our website as they have residential courses (although one is a mixed human-physical course using PBL). Yet most of our undergraduate courses incorporate fieldwork of some sort, usually something that puts an emphasis on active participation, and not necessarily involving direct staff time (such as trails).

I like the way in which the paper poses questions at the end of each section. The one about large student numbers having significant negative impacts on quality and quantity of fieldwork is a good one. It is also the obvious question to pose if fieldwork is defined in the traditional course/residential way.

It can however be turned around to say: what opportunities are there for using different field methods once class sizes become large? This was the question which informed the group based fieldwork that we use at Canterbury in a second year human geography course, reported in the JGHE (Pawson and Teather 2002). Part of our purpose in that paper was to report an active participation method; part was to point out how valuable fieldwork in the local environment, fieldwork that costs next to nothing, can be: it can draw out student excitement once they begin to engage in more informed ways with everyday landscapes.

Livingstone, I, Matthews, H and Castley, A, Fieldwork and Dissertations in Geography, Geography Discipline Network and HEFCE, Cheltenham, 1999.

Pawson, E and Teather, E K, '"Geographical expeditions": assessing he benefits of a student-driven fieldwork method', Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26 (3), 2002, 275-89.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Brian Chalkley, LTSN-GEES Subject Centre, University of Plymouth
Date: 30 July 2004
Posting: Even in draft form, this paper makes interesting reading in that we obtain a glimpse of Geography fieldwork practice as developed in the Higher Education systems of a number of different countries. The paper also explicitly raises a series of questions which will provide fertile ground for lively discussions at Glasgow.

However, it might be advantageous if the final text were centred around a rather more limited number of themes or issues of particular importance. Building on Mick Healey’s comments (20th July) there is perhaps a danger of trying to cover too much ground in a potentially huge topic of this nature. I wonder therefore whether the group might perhaps like at least to consider developing a final version of the paper which focuses directly and in more detail on a somewhat more restricted set of questions. These might include: ‘What are the most important international similarities and differences in HE Geography fieldwork practice?’, ‘How and why do these variations between countries occur?’ and ‘What important lessons about fieldwork can we learn from each other?’ This final question is perhaps of particular interest in that one of the main purposes of the INLT event is to exchange experiences and to learn about different ways of designing and delivering HE geography curricula.

In many ways these questions and issues are, of course, already embedded in the paper which even in its current draft form contains lots of interesting material. So my comments above would involve some streamlining rather than a major rethink. However, these are matters for the group to consider in Glasgow and, while proposing a somewhat more focused approach, I certainly would not wish to curtail or restrict the debate!

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Ruth Healey
Date: 30 July 2004
Posting: I enjoyed reading this paper and found the structure helpful to stimulate ideas in my mind.

As a human geographer, who only went on one week's residential fieldwork throughout my time at university this paper has given me interesting issues to consider.

I think that fieldwork is an important part of a geography degree, and having spoken to my friends who also chose to do their geography degree it was an important part of their decision either because they enjoyed the fieldwork they did at A Level or their own research projects.

I recently heard that as of next year the University from which I recently graduated will no longer be offering its annual human geography fieldtrip to Edinburgh. I was saddened upon hearing this as I think future students will lose out on a valid and worthwhile experience, which I think should have been carried out more often rather than wiped off the syllabus.

The fieldwork experience that I had was extremely beneficial, not only from an academic perspective but also from a more personal and social view. This was encouraged through working in groups of students. In reading the paper on social transformations it is noted that there is a divide between 'post-adolescent undergraduates' and academic staff. It was only due to my experience of the fieldwork at the end of my second year when this divide started to break down a little as the lecturers running the fieldcourse socialised with the students. In terms of learning and future skills for employability, this breakdown in the division is refreshing and beneficial for building the confidence of the students, who began to feel themselves to be more on an equal level with the university staff.

Fieldwork is one of the key factors that distinguishes geography from other subjects; it encourages the student's love and passion for the subject.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Paul Rooney - Liverpool Hope University College, UK
Date: 5 August 2004
Posting: This is a stimulating paper that raises useful issues for our work in Glasgow. Fieldwork is traditionally such important activity in our discipline it warrants a wide ranging debate. This is perhaps a problem here, as identified by other commentators. There are so many things to pick up on - all are very interesting, but for this paper we should focus on a small number of issues / themes. The others should not be lost - could they be considered for future papers in the INLT ? - or perhaps as part of the on-going project to designed on the second day in Glasgow?

It is interesting to think about what is fieldwork - residential, non-residential, local, foreign, various settings etc. The paper might attempt a short definition? If I sit out in the campus on the grass on a sunny day and teach my students - is that fieldwork ? What is fieldwork?

We could recognise that other disciplines have fieldwork - indeed, it is an important activity for them too. What are these disciplines? What do they do? How much commonality is there with Geography? Is geography fieldwork really so special and unique? We also need to remeber that many degrees are not solely geography - combined degrees - and student might experience fieldwork from at least two subject perspectives.

I certainly agree that fieldwork is at the very heart of the discipline - after all, geography prides itself on being interested in the real world, and if we are not 'out there' how can we really understand what is going on ? The paper and some of the commentators mention that fieldwork is a highly enjoyable aspect of geography for both students and staff. We should not undervalue this - it is very important. We are perhaps a little short of 'exciting' geography and the discipline is under many pressures, esp. as witnessed in the UK. Fieldwork has an important role in filling the 'excitement gap'.

In the case of widening participation in HE I think that the opportunity for learning presented by fieldwork is particularly important when working with non-traditional entrants in to HE. Perhaps this could be a research project in itself to determine the vale of this activity for them?

When thinking about who fieldwork is for, then I agree with an earlier commentator in that we must not limit ourselves to undergraduates only - it must include postgrads - and perhaps those doing Foundation degrees or Certificates in HE.

The comments made by Ruth Healy make an interesting contribution that should wake up some of us regarding fieldwork. As a recent undergraduate she mentions value of the fieldwork as being an exercise to 'breakdown the division' between students and staff. We have also found this in our experience. We have a very early fieldwork in the undergrad course - 2 or three weeks in to the semester. This is very important for students to get to know each other - and for us to get to know them. Subject identity. Enthusiasm. Fun. Exciting geography. All these things are outcomes of the early fieldwork. I feel that it also helps with retention when working with widening participation students who may not feel 'comfortable' in HE. The early fieldwork helps to define the 'new' student-tutorrelationship as appropriate for HE. This relationship changes significantly throughout the three years of study (if undergrad) developing a feeling of working together, mutual respect and trust. Could there be an on-going research project inthis somewhere?

On the point of 'economy of fieldwork planning' - maybe we should think about combining students across stages of study on the same fieldwork activity, albeit with different learning outcomes appropriate to their level. Not only might there be economies of scale, but students might benefit from meeting and working with students at other stages in their studies.

The issue of employability and the contribution made by fieldwork is very interesting - I will take thoughts back to the Employability group in this project.

I would like to think about the environmental impact of fieldwork - choice of location, travel options, purchasing when in the location, etc-but this would be broadening out the paper out too much. It is an issue that troubles me significantly in designing our fieldwork.

The comments made by Janice Monk in several of the papers are very relevant - we should have a space for consideration of the cross-cutting themes coming out of these discussions. I strongly support this.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Michael Solem - Association of American Geographers
Date: 6 August 2004
Posting: As an advocate of fieldwork in geography education, I enjoyed reading this paper and welcomed the inclusion of this topic in the forum. My main suggestion would be to include a discussion of the ever-changing role of technology in fieldwork, including the use of global positioning systems, geographic information systems, and remote sensing to enhance or complement the traditional field methodology. Also, for comparative purposes, I think the authors should reflect on the use of "virtual fieldwork" or "virtual field studies" in geography. There have been many projects and papers on this topic in since the late 1990s (one of the earliest papers was a product of the first INLT meeting in 1999), and geographers have been engaged in interesting debates on the relative educational value of traditional vs. virtual fieldwork. What have we learned through research, and what lingering questions remain?

• From "Learning to do Pedagogic Research and Researching Fieldwork in GEES Disciplines" - Fieldwork Education and Technology
• Virtual Learning Environments and the Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, An LTSN-GEES one-day conference - November 2003

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Karl Donert - Liverpool Hope University College
Date: 10 August 2004
Posting: I enjoyed reading the paper and the comments made by all contributors. As someone who continues to be enthralled by fieldwork experiences I'd like to raise the following questions/comments

Firstly what is the role of fieldwork? If this can be identified then can we then make a clear case for its inclusion at all levels in the curriculum (school, higher education, research)? Is there a danger than we underplay the importance/relevance of fieldwork to geographers as an essential part of their professional training. So the role and value of fieldwork needs to be clearly conveyed. Is a variety of experience essential?

Secondly, I reinterate what was said by Paul Rooney and repeat my comment from the Distance Learning discussion - Geography is international, so ways of breaking down barriers in order to allow young people to travel, explore and experience places (at an international scale) through the eyes of (academic) Geography are essential. This might be enabled by forming international alliances and sharing opportunities for fieldwork. Those who travel benefit - those who receive would also get an international experience through the international students. So developing an international database of field opportunities for students might be one approach (these opportunities could be recognised at home * like exchanges as credit bearing). Alternatively groups of institutions could jointly develop exciting curriculum and international fieldwork opportunities through joint course developments and exchange opportunities. Joint accreditation (through ECTS or another such credit-recognition system) would open the gates to those who might otherwise not gain access to such experiences at home. Is this an opportunity to explore and a role for INLT or HERODOT or the IGU?

Thirdly having worked with colleagues in many different countries it appears that there are several 'schools of fieldwork'. Perhaps we need to undertake some sort of inventory of what is done when and with what purpose. The goal might be to determine what sorts of fieldwork are necessary to ensure that the needs of 'professional' Geographers going into employment can be met? Pedagogical research ought to focus on this and possible solutions and scenarios determined.

Finally, to comment on Mike Sanders reference to the significance of technology, I agree with Mick Healey but would add the serious comment that the image of Geography is at stake as well. The image of Geography remains very stereotyped (waterproofs and wellington boots)/ What is the sort of image we need to promote? At a time when Geography is struggling for its survival in many European countries (Donert, Plumb and Wall, in preparation) maintaining and promoting the uniqueness and attraction of the discipline is essential. The comments made in the Distance Learning discussion on technologies need to be carefully considered by this group and the significance of the effective use of GPS, mobile technologies, GIS etc. etc. have to be actively promoted.

So, as a field-based discipline I believe that Geography needs to identify and actively publicise relevant goals of and values for fieldwork in the 21st century. If (as suggested by Brian Chalkley) fieldwork becomes increasingly under threat, should the role the IGU and other international bodies be to actively promote the essential need for fieldwork in our discipline and in recognising the importance of fieldwork-competent Geographers society.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Artimus Keiffer - Wittenberg University, USA
Date: 13 August 2004
Posting: Fieldwork in Geography is a key element to go beyond the classroom and provide a context to understand conceptual material. Although I have taken numerous students to Cuba, I have had little chance to conduct international outings here in the U.S. Part of this is due to the size of the school, the cost of such trips, and the liability issues that many administrators have with such programs. Reading the comments of others, and living in a semi-isolationist country (my opinion), many students do not take advantage of the international programs offered without incentives such as financial aid and an idea of a "good time". On one trip to Cuba, a student who did not attend the preliminary meetings, violated the one rule I established: "don't leave the group". I was forced to send them back to the states and I was admonished for it because their father was a faculty member at a related university. Although this seems minor, I have since lost some of my enthusiasm for such ventures.
I have found, however, a lot of field work that can be done on a local level, and focus my attention on providing that type of exposure to class issues. I do a lot of quick trips during class time to local venues to landfills, etc., I have students visit local museums while i might be out of town, and i have a whole exercise on using mass-transportation to visit various parts of the city. Students are required to write summary/reaction papers and to draw maps of their activities. I realize this is out of the scope of international fieldwork, but I find that it is very successful in relating course concepts to personal experience.
On another note, it seems that too few courses, especially here in the U.S., do not require field experience and I have found few new texts that deal with this aspect of Geography. In a core curriculum that is already strained due to the four-year rule, it is hard to require yet another course in field research. Many of my colleagues here in the states realize the importance of such activities but are limited by administrative restraints, enthusiasm by the students for such activities, and budgetary considerations. It seems doing small trips during class time with the onus on the student to complete them with some degree of comprehension is one of the answers.

---

Comments on Fieldwork in Geography in Higher Education - international perspectives
From: Sue Vajoczki - McMaster University, Canada
Date: 13 August 2004
Posting: I found this paper an interesting read – particularly given my current situation of trying to prepare to leave for the conference and knowing that the day I arrive back in Canada I will begin teaching our two week field camp course. My comments about field teaching are based on my experience in the Canadian context and in particular at a mid-sized Ontario university. The definition we use for field teaching is relatively broad and includes nearly any experiential learning opportunity that we are able to provide for our students outside of the regular classroom.

The question is asked early in the paper if the focus on skill development is a common pattern internationally. It has certainly been a focus of much discussion and curriculum revisions over the last several years here. The impetus for this focus I believe comes in part from the Boyer Report (US) and the Smith Commission (Canada). Both of these documents called for a re-examination of the skill development of students and the marketability of students upon graduation. Field teaching is perceived as an excellent opportunity for students to develop personal transferable skills (communication, technical, group work,…), thus, has been emphasized since the release of these reports.

A major impact on field work in recent years has been increasing student numbers and determining how to effectively incorporate field work in the larger classes. This has been combined with a period of ‘budget tightening’ and reduced funding to higher education within Canada. These two factors have necessitated a real consideration of demonstrating the relevance of the field experience to the classroom theory and to the real world. At this point, at our institution, we are currently offering more field experiences for our students than we did five, ten or fifteen years previously.

Another issue that has arisen in recent years is the accessibility aspect of our field trips for mobility impaired students. We have accommodated this, in general, on a case by case basis. One way that we have accommodated this group of students is through the creation of ‘virtual field trips’ (which in no way fully replace the actual experience). These ‘virtual trips’ allow students to see and ‘work’ there way through the field sites without actually visiting the site.

I do not have data to back up the statement but my opinion based on my experience as an academic advisor for undergraduate students in our department is that the field experiences are a key program recruiting strategy. Students often enroll in our program after having enjoyed the first year course and particularly the field component.

Good luck with your development of this paper.

Sue Vajoczki