One of the most enjoyable, challenging, and certainly most memorable aspects of teaching that I have encountered so far has been working as a supervisor on a human geography fieldtrip. The fieldtrip is often a central selling point of geography as a discipline for students choosing their undergraduate degree, and is considered a vital pedagogical tool in the development of student research skills (Keighren 2013). This wiki will provide a brief reflection on the challenges I faced, and the ways in which I developed my teaching practice during the fieldtrip.
In March 2015 I, along with several other colleagues, took around forty second year undergraduate students on a human geography fieldtrip to New York City. A mix of observational and participatory teaching was used to help students develop their own short research project, to be written up in the style of a mini-dissertation when they returned home to the UK. Both observational and participatory techniques had their advantages and disadvantages for teaching in the field.
Observational fieldwork traditionally follows a ‘look-see’ format, in which the teacher provides in-field teaching. Aside from being in the field rather than the classroom, this method is in many ways similar to the standard seminar, with the teacher leading the class, engaging students with questions and discussion points. However, it has been argued that students can find this style of fieldwork tedious, and be easily distracted by their surroundings (Kent et al 1997). However, observational fieldwork remains a useful pedagogical technique if taught in an engaged manner, as it can provide a useful overview for students before they move on to more participatory learning.
I began the fieldtrip with a day of observational fieldwork in order to help students develop a strong understanding of the wider themes of the course before they delved into their own individual research projects. I tried to mitigate potential boredom or distraction by taking them to several sites around the city. I also used a variety of in-the-field teaching techniques, such as taking them to a museum followed by a short seminar session, and providing them with a walking tour through several neighbourhoods in order to bring to life the teaching matter (Gold 1991). Using several observational methods to provide an overview of the key themes was I felt successful, as it broke the day up into a variety of sites and sub-topics, helping to keep student interest. However, it also had its practical challenges, namely due to the fact that I had not been to New York before, and therefore orienting myself around a large city with a group of undergraduates in tow did at times lead to us getting lost, which may have been a distraction for the students. Keeping them engaged throughout the entirety of the day was also difficult after many hours on their feet. Were I to supervise on the fieldtrip again, I would consider slightly reducing the number of sites covered in the observational fieldwork day in order to improve student concentration, as I could see they were struggling to concentrate fully by our final stop.
The remainder of the trip consisted of participatory fieldwork, whereby students conducted their own qualitative research on a chosen sub-topic. As Kent et al note; ‘participatory fieldwork has the reputation for engaging student attention and deepening the learning experience’ (1997: 317). I certainly found this to be true, as students were generally very enthusiastic about having more or less complete autonomy in choosing project themes and conducting research. However, I did find that as a consequence participatory fieldwork supervision did provide its own unique challenges. The main challenge was keeping all of my students focused on conducting their research projects independently without my being present. I did my best to keep them focused by balancing the independent nature of the project with a more directly supportive role. I met with the students on a voluntary one-on-one basis at least once a day. I asked them what progress they had made, what their research plans were for the remainder of the trip, and discussed any emerging findings with them to help them begin the process of analysing their findings. Health and safety concerns was the other primary issue, as I did not necessarily know where students were at any given moment. This was mitigated as best as possible by asking students to go about the city in pairs, and by ensuring that I had a contact number for every student. In future, in order to mitigate both of these issues more thoroughly, I would have made the one-on-one meetings mandatory rather than voluntary, and if I were particularly worried meet with students at their research sites once a day to ensure that they were conducting research thoroughly and safely.
Overall I felt that, despite its challenges, teaching in a fieldwork context is a very worthwhile pedagogical technique. Through combining observational and participatory fieldwork teaching styles, I felt that students received a well-rounded learning experience, gaining an important overview of key themes during the observational portion of the fieldtrip, and through participatory fieldwork developing their ability to conduct autonomous research, whilst still receiving ongoing support from myself throughout.
Bibliography
Gold, J. 1991. ‘Fieldwork’, in Gold, J., Jenkins, A., Lee, R., Monk, J., Riley, J., Sheppard, I. and Unwin, D (eds)Teaching Geography in Higher Education: a manual of good practice, pp. 21-35 (Oxford, Blackwell).
Keighren, I. 2013. ‘Teaching historical geography in the field’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 37 (4) pp. 567-577.
Kent, M., Gilbertson, D. and Hunt, C. 1997. ‘Fieldwork in Geography Teaching: a critical review of the literature and approaches’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21 (3) pp. 313-332.
One of the most enjoyable, challenging, and certainly most memorable aspects of teaching that I have encountered so far has been working as a supervisor on a human geography fieldtrip. The fieldtrip is often a central selling point of geography as a discipline for students choosing their undergraduate degree, and is considered a vital pedagogical tool in the development of student research skills (Keighren 2013). This wiki will provide a brief reflection on the challenges I faced, and the ways in which I developed my teaching practice during the fieldtrip.
In March 2015 I, along with several other colleagues, took around forty second year undergraduate students on a human geography fieldtrip to New York City. A mix of observational and participatory teaching was used to help students develop their own short research project, to be written up in the style of a mini-dissertation when they returned home to the UK. Both observational and participatory techniques had their advantages and disadvantages for teaching in the field.
Observational fieldwork traditionally follows a ‘look-see’ format, in which the teacher provides in-field teaching. Aside from being in the field rather than the classroom, this method is in many ways similar to the standard seminar, with the teacher leading the class, engaging students with questions and discussion points. However, it has been argued that students can find this style of fieldwork tedious, and be easily distracted by their surroundings (Kent et al 1997). However, observational fieldwork remains a useful pedagogical technique if taught in an engaged manner, as it can provide a useful overview for students before they move on to more participatory learning.
I began the fieldtrip with a day of observational fieldwork in order to help students develop a strong understanding of the wider themes of the course before they delved into their own individual research projects. I tried to mitigate potential boredom or distraction by taking them to several sites around the city. I also used a variety of in-the-field teaching techniques, such as taking them to a museum followed by a short seminar session, and providing them with a walking tour through several neighbourhoods in order to bring to life the teaching matter (Gold 1991). Using several observational methods to provide an overview of the key themes was I felt successful, as it broke the day up into a variety of sites and sub-topics, helping to keep student interest. However, it also had its practical challenges, namely due to the fact that I had not been to New York before, and therefore orienting myself around a large city with a group of undergraduates in tow did at times lead to us getting lost, which may have been a distraction for the students. Keeping them engaged throughout the entirety of the day was also difficult after many hours on their feet. Were I to supervise on the fieldtrip again, I would consider slightly reducing the number of sites covered in the observational fieldwork day in order to improve student concentration, as I could see they were struggling to concentrate fully by our final stop.
The remainder of the trip consisted of participatory fieldwork, whereby students conducted their own qualitative research on a chosen sub-topic. As Kent et al note; ‘participatory fieldwork has the reputation for engaging student attention and deepening the learning experience’ (1997: 317). I certainly found this to be true, as students were generally very enthusiastic about having more or less complete autonomy in choosing project themes and conducting research. However, I did find that as a consequence participatory fieldwork supervision did provide its own unique challenges. The main challenge was keeping all of my students focused on conducting their research projects independently without my being present. I did my best to keep them focused by balancing the independent nature of the project with a more directly supportive role. I met with the students on a voluntary one-on-one basis at least once a day. I asked them what progress they had made, what their research plans were for the remainder of the trip, and discussed any emerging findings with them to help them begin the process of analysing their findings. Health and safety concerns was the other primary issue, as I did not necessarily know where students were at any given moment. This was mitigated as best as possible by asking students to go about the city in pairs, and by ensuring that I had a contact number for every student. In future, in order to mitigate both of these issues more thoroughly, I would have made the one-on-one meetings mandatory rather than voluntary, and if I were particularly worried meet with students at their research sites once a day to ensure that they were conducting research thoroughly and safely.
Overall I felt that, despite its challenges, teaching in a fieldwork context is a very worthwhile pedagogical technique. Through combining observational and participatory fieldwork teaching styles, I felt that students received a well-rounded learning experience, gaining an important overview of key themes during the observational portion of the fieldtrip, and through participatory fieldwork developing their ability to conduct autonomous research, whilst still receiving ongoing support from myself throughout.
Bibliography
Gold, J. 1991. ‘Fieldwork’, in Gold, J., Jenkins, A., Lee, R., Monk, J., Riley, J., Sheppard, I. and Unwin, D (eds)Teaching Geography in Higher Education: a manual of good practice, pp. 21-35 (Oxford, Blackwell).
Keighren, I. 2013. ‘Teaching historical geography in the field’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 37 (4) pp. 567-577.
Kent, M., Gilbertson, D. and Hunt, C. 1997. ‘Fieldwork in Geography Teaching: a critical review of the literature and approaches’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21 (3) pp. 313-332.