Abstract
Fieldwork is assumed by most practitioners to be an important if not essential component of a degree level education in the environmental sciences. However, there is strong evidence that as a result of a wide range of pressures (academic, financial and societal) fieldwork is in decline in the UK and elsewhere. In this paper we discuss the value of fieldwork in a higher education context and present the results of a case study which illustrates its value to student learning and the wider student experience. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to compare the impact of two learning tasks upon the affective and cognitive domains of students. We designed two tasks. One task that included fieldwork, and required students to collect organisms from the field and make labelled drawings of them, and one task that omitted the fieldwork and simply required drawing of specimens that the students had not collected. We evaluated the students’ experience through structured and semi-structured questionnaires and written exercises. Students did not perceive the two tasks as being equivalent to one another. They reported that they enjoy fieldwork and value it (in the contexts of their learning at university, life-long learning, and in relation to their career aspirations) and felt that they learn more effectively in the field. Our students were better able to construct a taxonomic list of organisms that they had collected themselves, better able to recall the structural detail of these organisms and were better able to recall the detail of an ecological sampling methodology that they had personally carried out in the field rather than one that a tutor had described to them in a classroom setting. Our case study supports the growing body of evidence that fieldwork is an important way of enhancing undergraduate learning and highlights some key areas for future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker S (2005) Student-centered ecology: authentic contexts and sustainable science. In: McLoughlin C, Taji A (eds) Teaching in the sciences: learner-centered approaches. Food Products Press, New York, pp 9–25
Barker S, Slingsby D and Tilling S (2002) Teaching biology outside of the classroom: is it heading for extinction? A report on biology in the 14–19 curriculum. FSC occasional publication 72. Preston Montford, Shropshire, Field studies council
Bebbington A (2005) The ability of A-level students to name plants. J Biol Educ 39:63–67
Biggs J (1999) Teaching for quality learning at University. Society for Research ino Higher Education/Open University Press, Buckingham
Bloom B (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook I: cognitive domain. McGraw-Hill, New York
Boyle A, Maguire S, Martin A, Milsom C, Nash R, Rawlinson S, Turner A, Wurthman S, Conchie S (2007) Fieldwork is good: the student perception and the affective domain. J Geogr High Educ 31:299–317
Braun M, Buyer R, Randler C (2010) Cognitive and emotional evaluation of two educational outdoor programs dealing with non-native bird species. Int J Environ Sci Educ 5:151–168
Davenport, J. (1998) Report of the marine biology teaching forum. University Marine Biological Station, Millport. Occasional publication no.7
Dillon J, Rickinson M, Teamey K, Morris M, Choi MY, Sanders D, Benefield P (2006) The value of outdoor learning: evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Sci Rev 87:107–111
Eiss AF, Harbeck MB (1969) Learning objectives in the affective domain. National Science Teachers Association, Washington, p 42
Evans SM, Dixon S, Heslop J (2006) Pupils’ knowledge of birds: how good is it and where does it come from? School Sci Rev 88:93–98
Fuller IC (2006) What is the value of fieldwork? Answers from New Zealand using two contrasting undergraduate physical geography field trips. N Z Geogr 62:215–220
Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2004) Biodiversity. Blackwell Oxford, Oxford
Goulder R and Scott GW (2009) Field study of plant diversity: extending the whole-class knowledge base through open-ended learning. Biosci Educ 14: 9. http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol14/beej-14-1.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2010
Healey M, Kneale P, Bradbeer J (2005) Learning styles among Geography undergraduates: an international comparison. Area 37:30–42
Herrick C (2010) Lost In the field: ensuring student learning in the ‘threatened’ geography fieldtrip. Area 42:108–116
House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Third report: science and society. HMSO, London
House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science and Technology (2008) Systematics and taxonomy: follow up. HMSO, London
Kendall S, Murfield J, Dillon J, Wilkin A (2006) Education outside the classroom: research to identify what training is offered by initial teacher training institutions. National Foundation for Educational Research, DfES, UK
Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Lock R (1994) The biology of living things. J Biol Educ 28:79–80
Manzanal RF, Rodríguez Barreiro LM, Casal Jiménez M (1999) Relationship between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes towards environmental protection. J Res Sci Teach 36:431–453
Maskall J, Stokes A (2008) Designing effective fieldwork for the environmental sciences. Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth
McGuiness M, Simm D (2005) Going global? Long-haul fieldwork in undergraduate geography. J Geogr High Educ 29:241–253
Millenbah KF, Millspaugh JJ (2003) Using experiential learning in wildlife courses to improve retention, problem solving, and decision-making. Wildl Soc Bull 31:127–137
Nundy S, Dillon J and Dowd P (2009) Improving and encouraging teacher confidence in out-of-classroom learning: the impact of the Hampshire Trailblazer project on 3-13 curriculum practitioners. Education 3-13 37, 61–73
QAA (2002) Biosciences subject benchmark statement. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Gloucester
Randler C (2009) Learning about bird species on the primary level. J Sci Educ Technol 18:138–145
Randler C, Bogner F (2002) Comparing methods of instruction using bird species identification skills as indicators. J Biol Educ 36:181–188
Randler C, Ilg A, Kern J (2005) Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. J Environ Educ 37(1):43–52
Rickinson M, Dillon J, Teamey K, Morris M, Choi MY, Sanders D, Benefield P (2004) A review of research on outdoor learning. Preston Montford, Field Studies Council, Shropshire
Smith D (2004) Issues and trends in higher education biology fieldwork. J Biol Educ 39:6–11
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York
Stokes A. and Boyle A. (2009) The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: influencing factors and implications for learning. In: Whitmeyer SJ, Mogk DW, and Pyle EJ (eds). Field geology education: historical perspectives and modern approaches. Geological society of America special paper 461, pp 291–311
Strgar J (2007) Increasing the interest of students in plants. J Biol Educ 42:19–23
Tal T, Morag O (2009) Reflective practice as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. J Sci Teach Educ 20:245–262
Taraban R, McKenney C, Peffley E, Applegarth A (2004) Live specimens more effective than World Wide Web for learning plant material. J Nat Resour Life Sci Educ 33:106–110
Tilling S (2004) Fieldwork in UK secondary schools: influences and provision. J Biol Educ 38:54–58
UNCED (1992) Promoting education, public awareness and training. Agenda 21 (Chapter 36). Regency Press, London
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the students who took part in this project: Melanie Southard; Tim Pascoe; Elizabeth Goodge; Robert Aitken; John Dixie; Alice Barrand; Robert Varazinskis and Diana Pearce. The project upon which this paper is based, The Value of Fieldwork, was made possible by funding awarded through the University of Hull Innovations in Teaching Award Scheme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: The Learning Exercise as Presented to the Students
Appendix: The Learning Exercise as Presented to the Students
Learning About Invertebrates Through Sorting and Interpreting Collections
Learning Objectives
Students who have completed the exercise will be able to:
-
1.
Sort a collection of invertebrates from a specific habitat into taxonomic groups on the basis of characteristic morphological features, aided by relevant literature including keys and illustrated guides.
-
2.
Identify and classify the principal animals in the collection to the level of phylum, class, order and where possible family and genus.
-
3.
Demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the collection by:
-
a.
Making a list of the animals present which will include their phylum, class, order and where possible family and genus, with brief notes on the principal morphological features that allow the classification of each of the animals present.
-
b.
Making line drawings of three animals with comprehensive descriptive labelling and annotations, the annotations to include comment on morphological adaptations to the animals’ specific habitat.
-
a.
The Learning Exercise
Please work in pairs. The following tasks should be completed.
-
1.
Each pair will begin with a mixed collection of invertebrates that have been collected from one habitat. The pair should sort the collection into the different types of animals present. Individual animals can be transferred using a wet brush from the main collection to Petri dishes, using separate Petri dishes for each taxon.
-
2.
Next the animals can be identified and classified to the level of phylum, class, order and where possible family and genus. Appropriate guides and keys will be provided to help with this task; students may consult one another and the staff.
-
3.
Each student should individually prepare a list of the animals in the collection. This should reflect the classification of the animals and for each animal should include: (a) its phylum, class, order and where possible family and genus, (b) brief notes to describe the characteristic morphological features that helped you with identification and classification.
-
4.
Each student should make an accurate and precise pencil drawing of each of three of the animals. Use a separate sheet for each drawing. The drawings should be fully labelled to draw attention to features of interest and importance. The drawings should also be annotated with additional biological information about the specimen. The annotations should include information on how you think the animal is morphologically adapted to life in its specific habitat.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, G.W., Goulder, R., Wheeler, P. et al. The Value of Fieldwork in Life and Environmental Sciences in the Context of Higher Education: A Case Study in Learning About Biodiversity. J Sci Educ Technol 21, 11–21 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9276-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9276-x