View in EDS HTML Full Text

Thirteen Ways of Doing Fieldwork with Large Classes/More Students.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Thirteen Ways of Doing Fieldwork with Large Classes/More Students.
Language: English
Authors: Jenkins, Alan
Source: Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 1994 18(2):143-154.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 1994
Intended Audience: Teachers; Practitioners
Document Type: Reports - Descriptive
Guides - Classroom - Teacher
Journal Articles
Descriptors: Active Learning, Class Organization, Class Size, Classroom Environment, Educational Change, Educational Objectives, Educational Strategies, Experiential Learning, Field Instruction, Foreign Countries, Geography Instruction, Higher Education, Teacher Student Ratio, Teaching Methods
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
ISSN: 0309-8265
Abstract: Discusses problems of maintaining higher education geography fieldwork in an era of increasing class size. Presents and describes 13 strategies for coping with these problems. Recommends that individual teachers and geography departments redesign their fieldwork programs in accordance with their priorities. (CFR)
Entry Date: 1995
Accession Number: EJ502238
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9511031769;JGH01JUN.94;1996Nov15.12:39;v2.3</anid> <title id="AN9511031769-1">THIRTEEN WAYS OF DOING FIELDWORK WITH LARGE CLASSES/MORE STUDENTS ALAN JENKINS, OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY </title> <p>ABSTRACT The problems of maintaining geography fieldwork with increased student numbers is outlined. Thirteen strategies for coping with these problems are described. Individuals and, in particular, departments are urged to redesign their fieldwork programme using and developing these suggestions to address their own educational priorities. </p> <p>KEYWORDS Large classes, increased SSRs, fielwork. </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Many departments spend large proportions of their budget on fieldwork, and students often make substantial contributions. . . Some departments with rising numbers are experiencing difficulties in staffing fieldwork and not all have given sufficient consideration on how fieldwork can best be offered to increased cohorts. (emphasis added) </p> <p>(A Survey of Geography Fieldwork in Degree Courses, a Report by HMI [DES, 1992, p. 4]) </p> <p>As student numbers increase without related increases in staff or if staff numbers decrease without related decreases in students, class sizes are likely to rise, as are student:staff ratios (SSRs). Moreover, because the increased student numbers may be concentrated in some courses, it is important to recognise that departments are faced with two related problems: large classes and more students. </p> <p>This article offers an a la carte menu of ways of doing fieldwork with large classes and more students. It is primarily addressed to teachers of geography and field-based subjects in the UK who are faced with teaching many more students at much higher student:staff ratios. However, its message and ideas should be of value to others working in mass higher education systems who wish to include quality, field-based teaching in their courses. In the UK the central pedagogic problems are whether and how one can adjust teaching methods and course design to cope with larger classes and more students. In North America, Australasia and other mass education systems in affluent societies the problem is whether one can redesign courses to cope with budget cuts and yet ensure students and legislators that they are getting value for money. For geographers one central issue is how quality fieldwork can be achieved in these circumstances. Perhaps it cannot--but here are some suggestions for coping with these difficulties. </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-3">What is the Problem?</hd> <p>For academics in many disciplines, fieldwork has been a central means of inducting and developing students' understanding of the values and practices of their discipline. In geography in the UK, an annual residential field course--generally a week in length-- has become an established part of most higher education courses (Gold et al., 1991). The general pattern was for the 30 to 40 students of that year to be directed by three to four staff, with most of the cost being met by departmental funds and student grants. In addition, there could also be other specialist fieldwork linked to certain option courses. </p> <p>In the last 10 to 20 years, that pattern has proved difficult, even impossible, to sustain. The evidence for this assertion comes partly from published sources. In a survey of the experience of British geography departments in the period 1986 to 1991, 26 out of 55 respondents either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with the statement "operating at higher student-staff ratios/larger classes has adversely affected the effectiveness of field work" (Jenkins &: Smith, 1993). There were frequent comments from respondents such as "with fieldwork the logistics of large numbers and budget constraints are a problem". The survey also showed that an immediate reaction by some geography departments to teaching more students was to repeat field courses (e.g. "we have maintained our previous SSR on field trips so their quality has not declined"). However, that was putting evident strain on staff, other areas of the curriculum and time for research. </p> <p>Relatedly, Gray (1993, p. 34), in a survey of UK geography departments in the old university sector, estimated that spending on "university geography fieldwork in the UK in 1990-91 amounted to about £1.5 million [and that] . . . asked how fieldwork funding had changed in real terms over the last five years, twice as many departments had seen a cut of over 10% compared with those who had seen an increase . . . When asked to project over the next five years, four times as many thought their funding would decrease compared with the number expecting an increase." </p> <p>The reasons why the 'traditional' pattern is no longer possible to sustain are multiple. They include: </p> <p>-- Much larger student cohorts: First-year intakes over 60 are now often the norm compared with around 30 students 10 or 20 years ago. This represents logistical problems in finding suitable accommodation, transport, etc. As group size increases, so it is difficult to generate clearly understood group norms, and discipline can become a problem. </p> <p>-- Increased strains on staff: As student numbers increase and SSRs deteriorate, so the strain on staff resources (time, energy and motivation) increases. Immediate reactions to the problem have included repeating field courses to limit the number of students, although this involves staff spending more time on fieldwork when increased numbers pose problems to them on other courses, and when they are also under increased pressure to do research and consultancy. For example, all first-year geographers at Oxford Brookes used to go on a residential weekend field course with all the staff to orientate them to the way of learning in the department and to help form into a cohesive group (Haigh & Gold, 1993). By 1988, numbers had reached the point where it was not possible to get everyone into one bus or our preferred field location. The decision was reluctantly taken to split the students into two groups who now go on different field weekends, thus losing some of the social aims of the course and requiring some staff to go on both trips. </p> <p>-- Financial cost to department funds and to students: As the unit of resource (the amount allocated for individual students) has decreased, so fieldwork has to compete with other needs for more limited funds. One result has been to make increased demands on students to pay all or a percentage of the costs--this at a time when students themselves are under severe financial pressure. </p> <p>-- More diverse student cohorts: Until recently in the UK, geography was a subject that appealed largely to students who had just left school. Now it is not just that there are more students; they are more diverse in background. In particular, more 'mature' students are enrolled in geography programmes. Their domestic responsibilities make many of them question the value of (lengthy) residential field courses. A growing awareness of equal opportunities issues make more students, staff and administrators question whether such field courses have to be compulsory and/or be residentially based at 'distant' locations. </p> <p>-- Change in the nature and value of the experience for staff and students: Though not all staff enjoyed fieldwork, most did, and those that did not often arranged not to go. Staff appreciated being geographers. They also enjoyed the more relaxed relationship with students. For students, the fieldwork itself--and certainly the social aspects surrounding it--was often the most memorable and enjoyable part of their degree. For many staff and students this may still be the case. For many it is not. Staff complain about the stress of repeating field courses and dealing with the numbers of students. Even those who do not enjoy field courses may have to go and go again! For many students, field courses are now a drain on limited funds. Some may be immediately hostile to whatever they will experience while, as in other large courses, numbers may mean a relatively anonymous passive experience with very limited interaction with staff. </p> <p>Clearly these are not the only problem areas. For example, there are also the problems of safety and damage or overuse of fieldwork locations. They all point to the same conclusion--that without a massive shift of resources to higher education (or just to geography!) the 'traditional' pattern of teaching cannot be maintained. Indeed, it may be that resource constraints mean fieldwork cannot be a central feature of a geography curriculum. So what is to be done? </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-4">Preamble to the Suggestions</hd> <p>What follows is a list of suggestions which may be useful. Its philosophy is that of the 53 Interesting series developed by Graham Gibbs and Sue and Trevor Habeshaw [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]. Many of them you are already doing; others may be irrelevant to you and your students' needs. But some of them may appear useful, either as I describe them or for the idea that they help you develop. </p> <p>Many of them I have used, seen or heard about. Others I have thought about and decided they might work. Few have been evaluated systematically; that will need doing as you try them out in a particular context. But that is good practice even with well-tried suggestions. Where appropriate, I provide key references. </p> <p>Though this article is self-contained, it would be helpful for you to relate it to the general problems faced by staff and students in coping with larger classes and the general strategies that have been suggested to cope with these (Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992; Habeshaw et al., 1992). Some of the ideas presented there may help you to develop strategies beyond those I suggest here. </p> <p>Like any good a la carte menu, it is hoped there is plenty of choice; you are the best judge of the ideal combination of dishes and you can suggest other ideas to the chef, who is yourself! That analogy hopefully indicates that many of the ideas work best when combined and that you should choose those that seem most appropriate to your own context and your own values. Some of the suggestions I present here conflict with my own values and educational objectives--but they may meet yours. They will work most effectively when a department decides collectively which of them to use, and how. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-5"> (1) Carefully Cost Present Practice </hd1> <p>Few institutions collect data on fieldwork costs in a rigorous and systematic way, or are able to monitor and compare financial and other inputs to fieldwork in a constant way. (DES, 1992, p. 2) </p> <p>It can be a revelation to staff systematically to cost the financial and other costs of their teaching. For example, as student numbers increase, the costs in time of assessment may be more than the time spent on other aspects of teaching a course. That may be a sensible allocation of time and resources, but we first have to cost our present practice and see if it makes sense. We might also have to consider how, say, a 20% increase in student numbers (without any increase in staff) would affect our calculations. </p> <p>Ways of costing courses are explained in Gibbs (1992a). One can start by costing the time staff spend preparing, doing and assessing fieldwork and comparing this with classroom-based courses. One can also compare the costs of present field courses against each other and then the costs of radically redesigning them (for an example of such a costing see Haigh & Gold (1993)). The challenge to staff is to redesign their field courses so they at least cost no more to staff and students than they do at present. Perhaps the students could also be involved in this exercise. Not only would they learn much from such an exercise, they might well identify issues of concern or possible savings that staff would not immediately identify. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-6"> (2) Don't Do it </hd1> <p>A radical solution is not to do any fieldwork or go on any field course. One could legitimise this by saying that fieldwork developed as part of a landscape and exploration view of academic geography. Since these traditions are no longer so central to the discipline, why should fieldwork be so central? Alternatively, it may be that we still may want to do it, but the costs are so great that we cannot. We will just have to teach a very different type of geography. After all, that is what is done in many North American geography departments! </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-7"> (3) Give up Other Things to Protect it </hd1> <p>Depending upon your view of the discipline and the educational value of fieldwork you may decide that fieldwork is so important that it has to be protected. You are then faced with the problem that something else has to be given up. One might cut down the notional allocation of staff time to classroom-based courses; one might reduce the number of specialist options; one might develop more courses through resource-based learning, etc. What one does do is make clear strategic choices to take resources of money and staff time from other areas to protect fieldwork. </p> <p>One of the basic principles for coping with more students is to carefully ration staff time spent with students. This may mean spreading staff resources thinly and evenly. Alternatively, it may mean defining certain courses as those that get little staff time and departmental resources, so as to maintain or establish certain high-quality courses (Webster, 1992). Perhaps geographers should consider fieldwork as expensive 'quality time' that can only be maintained if we ration it carefully and shift resources to protect it. (See strategies 4 and 5.) </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-8"> (4) Focus on Key Objectives </hd1> <p>Increased SSRs mean that we no longer achieve what we once attempted to do and often achieved. In designing field courses, staff can have a variety of objectives, ranging from promoting good staff/student relations to enabling students to be competent at carrying out certain field-based investigations. </p> <p>In designing our field courses we have to decide which of our present (and possible) objectives are most important. We have to decide which of them, though desirable, are not so important. We should be ready to give up those less important to protect those most important or, alternatively, find other cheaper ways to achieve them. For example, many UK departments have a clear policy that all or most staff and all students go together on a residential field course in year one. It may be that having costed our field courses we decide that: </p> <p>-- This is no longer possible for present and projected SSRs, which may mean abandoning a departmental ideology of close staff/student relations; </p> <p>-- it may mean developing a classroom or workshop-based course to develop such relations, but at very different costs than a residential field-based course; </p> <p>-- it may mean limiting such a course to an introductory weekend in the first year where the objectives are clearly social. This would then ensure that other field and classroom-based courses focus on other key objectives. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-9"> (5) Ration it Carefully </hd1> <p>One should treat the time that students are in the field (with staff) as expensive quality time. It should be rationed and allocated carefully to get the best value from it. This might mean targeting it to one or more of the following areas: </p> <p>-- introductory courses where students are at their most impressionable and where you can most readily influence their behaviour and attitudes (and ensure that they and the institutional resources that come with them stay in the geography programme); </p> <p>-- students who are specialist geographers--why waste valuable time and money on students who specialise in other disciplines?; </p> <p>-- specialist courses--here staff and student motivation is likely to be highest, and numbers more manageable; </p> <p>-- those parts of the subject where field teaching is essential and/or those areas that are not allocated other costly resources, e.g. computer facilities; </p> <p>-- those core, compulsory courses where fieldwork can be used to develop certain key employability skills, e.g. problem solving and team work; </p> <p>-- those students (or rather their parents) who can pay. </p> <p>Perhaps certain expensive field courses (e.g. certain locations abroad or those requiring expensive equipment) have to be restricted to those few students who can afford them (as in North America, with the study abroad programmes--Panton & Dilsaver, 1989). At Liverpool John Moores University, although geography students are required to go on a non-UK field course, they can choose whether to go to Germany, the USA or China, depending upon their interest and how much they want to or can pay! </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-10"> (6) Make the Ground Rules and Safety, Regulations Very Clear </hd1> <p>Even with small groups, staff and students face problems of discipline and safety. Staff should check carefully with their college Safety Officer as to their legal responsibilities, how they and students are insured and whether there are required ratios of staff to student numbers. These may legally require you to ration fieldwork or, if staff or students are not adequately insured, to decide not to go. </p> <p>With increased student numbers, certain locations or types of fieldwork may become too dangerous. In such cases, you may have to go elsewhere and teach a different type of geography. </p> <p>Increased numbers pose a very real problem of discipline. Traditionally, college staff have rarely seen discipline as a significant problem. McGee (1991), a sociologist specialising in teaching large classes, argues that a large class is not a group, it is a crowd. A crowd has no clear rules of conduct and its members have no sense of obligation to each other and thus large classes may present particular problems of discipline. I have been struck by the number of times geographers at workshops I run on large classes recount their fears (and harsh experiences) of indisciplined students on large field courses with few staff. Educationally that may mean that a field course has little quality. The personal consequences could be even more serious, including injuries or deaths and the consequent legal and financial costs to staff, departments and institutions. </p> <p>One way to try to deal with this problem is to make the ground rules very clear (possibly through negotiation with student representatives). What behaviour do you expect and require? What will you not tolerate? What are the consequences of breaking the ground rules? For example, Manchester University geography department has recently introduced a requirement that students going on field courses post a bond of £75 and agree to pay any damages above that amount for which they are responsible. </p> <p>Departments also have to consult carefully with their college Safety Officer (and legal representatives) and ensure there are clear safety codes and student and staff training. To repeat, strategy two suggests that changed circumstances mean we can no longer practice fieldwork. Perhaps the dangers of indiscipline on large field courses mean we have to ration it much more carefully. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-11"> (7) Make the Best Use of it and Act to Protect it </hd1> <p>In the past, UK geography departments required students to take part in annual field courses, but quite often the fieldwork was not integrated with the rest of the geography programme. One can criticise this approach on the general educational grounds that such activities lead to more significant learning when students are well prepared for them and have time to reflect on and build on their experience (Gold et al., 1991). </p> <p>With larger student cohorts it becomes essential to integrate fieldwork carefully with the overall geography programme as follows: </p> <p>-- fieldwork that is not integrated is relatively easy to cut out of a programme. Those controlling college budgets and/or institutional curriculum committees will find it much harder to withhold funds from fieldwork if it is an integral part of a programme; </p> <p>-- students will receive a clear message on the importance you attach to it and thus may be more willing to commit their money to sustain it; </p> <p>-- if one treats fieldwork as expensive quality time, then it can be supported by cheaper teaching methods, such as package-based material, or a very limited number of classroom-based sessions (Haigh 8: Gold, 1993). As a result, though the actual fieldwork may be expensive, the overall course is not. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-12"> (8) Do (Some of) it Locally </hd1> <p>Traditionally in Britain, most fieldwork has been done away from the institution's locality. There has also developed a tradition of at least one field course being abroad. On general educational grounds, one can question why certain types of location are chosen and others not. Faced with more students, the dominance of the distant location has to be challenged for it is often an expensive (and unnecessary?) option. </p> <p>Locally-based fieldwork provides many solutions to the problems of large-class field teaching: </p> <p>-- expenses of accommodation and travel are cut considerably; </p> <p>-- it is easy to integrate local fieldwork into the overall geography programme (strategy seven); </p> <p>-- the back-up costs of, for example, library facilities, statistics and databases are limited as the same or similar locations are used repeatedly; </p> <p>-- it is easier to integrate other support staff (see strategy nine) into a local programme; </p> <p>-- staff time can be allocated more precisely to support students working more independently (strategy nine). </p> <p>However, local locations also have their disadvantages. It is perhaps harder to develop the group's cohesion than on a residential field course away from the institution. The local area is probably not appropriate to certain types of geography (particularly certain types of physical geography). The harsh reality is that we may no longer be able to teach such types of geography. More positively, this strategy--as with others--needs to be integrated into a coherent departmental strategy. Perhaps a higher percentage of the department's fieldwork budget has to support fieldwork that has to be carried out in more distant locations. There are a number of accounts of local-based fieldwork, some of which are directed to the problems of student numbers. North American experience is particularly relevant here. For examples see Burgess and Jackson (1992), Hindle (1993), Kakela (1979), McNee (1987), Roddoway and Slowe (1993), Slater (1993) and Wheeler (1985). </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-13"> (9) Watch the Assessment </hd1> <p>It is sound curriculum planning to consider carefully how students are to be assessed, for assessment will largely determine how they approach their studies. Large classes and more students make it even more important to consider carefully how students are assessed, for staff are increasingly overwhelmed by the assessment loading of large classes. Depending upon departmental culture, the strategy will vary from increasing the assessment of fieldwork to cutting and/or changing it. </p> <p>The case for increasing the assessment of fieldwork (while coping with large numbers) is that, in many departments, though fieldwork has been a required activity, its assessment has been perfunctory. To make the best use of fieldwork (strategy seven) students need a message about its importance and this expensive quality time should be followed up and reflected upon. Well-designed assessment can ensure that. To provide the extra time to do this will require you to cut or omit other forms of teaching and/or assessment. </p> <p>In other cases, one may need radically to redesign the assessment to reduce staff workloads. One's interest in reading fieldwork reports cannot be sustained when faced with, say, 100 accounts of environmental problems in the same locality. Ways of assessing more students are set out in Gibbs (1992b). Specific ways of assessing more students on fieldwork include: </p> <p>-- assess students on the field course itself, for example by poster sessions or student presentations (Jenkins & Pepper, 1987). These methods are ideal for many of the activities done on field courses. Students themselves can do much of the assessment through self- and/or peer assessment; </p> <p>-- assess students as groups. Twenty-five group reports are much quicker to read than 100 individual ones (see Gibbs, 1992b for guidance on doing this); </p> <p>-- require students to keep notebooks of their work in the field. Again, students can assess these themselves. Alternatively, to limit your assessment load, require these only to be handed in, while ensuring that the overall assessment requires them to be used (see next point); </p> <p>-- include compulsory questions on (final) examinations that can only be answered by those who have worked hard on the field course and kept an effective notebook. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-14"> (10) Use Other Resources to Replace and/or Deliver (Some of) the Fieldwork </hd1> <p>This strategy involves using resources other than face-to-face teaching to replace aspects of staff involvement in fieldwork. Specific ways of doing this include: </p> <p>-- staff written booklets to replace some face-to-face teaching, particularly to prepare students to work effectively in the field; </p> <p>-- fieldwork trails (either commercially produced and/or written by staff or students). These can guide students either individually or in small groups around a fieldwork location. Keene (1982, 1993) provides guidance on how to design these fieldwork trails to ensure maximum student involvement. Such trails can enable many students to visit the same area, yet their experience is of a small group or individual exercise; </p> <p>-- videos (including promotional videos by tourist organisations, etc.) and computer packages such as The Ecodisc (BBC Enterprises, 1987). This is one area where, with developments such as CD ROMs and virtual reality, information technology may offer solutions to the problems posed by more students. For example, at the Department of Geography, Birkbeck College, "machine based tutors have . . . been developed to help students learn about the sites they will be visiting and understand some of the techniques of analysis they will be using. They are available for students to follow in their own time" (Bull, 1992, p. 8, emphasis added). </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-15"> (11) Don't Just Rely on Academic Staff </hd1> <p>Much of the cost of field courses is in the intensive use of expensive academic staff time. One strategy is to replace some of this expensive way of supporting student learning by other cheaper, yet perhaps no less effective, methods. Specific suggestions include: </p> <p>-- Organise students into project teams of four to six to carry out team-based fieldwork projects. The staff role is limited to helping the projects get set up and giving limited, focused support as students work in the field. As Haigh & Gold (1993) show, this enables large groups of students to do a field course, yet the dominant experience is of working (and being supported by staff) in a small group where the individuals support each other's learning. This strategy will work only if staff time and expertise is used to help such project teams to work independently (see Gibbs et al. (1992) for advice on this). </p> <p>-- The use of postgraduate students to perform certain aspects of field supervision is well established. This strategy could be extended to upper level students supporting first- and second-year students on project-based fieldwork, particularly that undertaken locally. The general strategy of getting students to teach other students is being adopted in other forms of large-class teaching. Student `helpers' are rewarded by money (they are cheaper than academic staff!), academic credit, and in other cases they do it because they enjoy it and say how it helps them to learn. Probably the best developed example of this general strategy is Supplemental Instruction which was developed at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (Martin & Arendale, 1992). Though I know no geography department that has really developed this strategy to cope with more students doing fieldwork, I think it could work. </p> <p>-- Many field courses involve talks and visits with local experts. One can develop this idea by pushing more of the load of student supervision to people outside the institution. For example, I know of health care courses where much of the day-to-day supervision (and assessment) of students is done by mentors in the workplace. So, although the course is large, the experience and support to students is direct and cost effective. Taking this principle further, one can adapt it to certain field courses by involving some agency or group to monitor and support student fieldwork. This might be particularly appropriate or possible where the agency or group wanted a field-based task undertaken and were happy to let it be done by student labour. Local community groups or environmental groups seem obvious possibilities. Such `mentors' could be paid by the quality of the work the students produced, by a fee that was somewhat less than the cost of equivalent academic staff time or even by academic credit. Thus in the health care studies course outlined above, many of the mentors are enrolled in the university outreach programme and their supervision of students gains them academic credit. </p> <p> <bold> (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>) Replace (Some) Field Teaching by Intensive Block </bold> Teaching </p> <p>Although certain objectives of field teaching may have to be achieved in the field, it is possible that other objectives, or many of the benefits of field courses, stem from them being intensive educational experiences. The normal student and staff experience is a fragmented pattern of different themes and courses. Field courses offer the benefits of an intensive concentration in a block of time, on one or a related set of themes. For once the tyranny of the weekly timetable, often divided into one-hour sessions, is put aside. </p> <p>Other disciplines, such as physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Parlett & King, 1971), have experimented with such block classroom exercises for particular themes or courses. Geographers could redesign some of their fieldwork so that it forms an intensive, largely classroom, experience. Evaluation might demonstrate that this achieves many of the objectives of much costlier residential field courses. </p> <hd1 id="AN9511031769-16"> (13) Research and Document What is Effective and Efficient </hd1> <p>One of the central problems faced by geographers who seek to maintain (or even introduce) fieldwork in the current political economic climate is that they have no firm evidence as to its effectiveness. "This literature on fieldwork in geography . . . is largely about assumed benefits, descriptions of particular field courses and specific field techniques. What is missing is evidence on whether or not the effort and expenditure are effective" (Gold, et al., 1991, p. 27). </p> <p>If we are to convince administrators, colleagues in other disciplines and students that fieldwork is still viable and worthwhile at higher student:staff ratios then we need firmer evidence as to whether it is effective. For example, geographers (myself included) now often emphasise that fieldwork can develop key employability skills including working in groups and giving spoken presentations (DES, 1992; Hindle, 1993; Slater, 1993). Have we any firm evidence that such skills are effectively developed through fieldwork and do they successfully help our students to be employed? In this respect how do local and residential field courses compare in efficiency and effectiveness? Would the evidence be of sufficient quality to convince more sceptical colleagues on university planning committees? Thus the final strategy I propose is that we collectively and individually research our own practice to see which aspects--if any--of field courses with more students are effective and efficient. We can no longer simply proclaim that fieldwork is a good thing. </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>To maintain fieldwork with more students, individual teachers and departments are faced with harsh choices. I have argued that by radically reconsidering how field courses are taught and assessed, it is possible to provide effective and cost-efficient field teaching. It has to be recognised that though some of the strategies I have suggested are based in documented studies, others have been tried only partially, and others are clearly speculative. They all require you to adapt them carefully to your programme and evaluate them thoroughly. Involving students in the evaluation of the redesign of their fieldwork can further their learning and take some of the load off you. </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-18">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>The difficulties of sustaining traditional fieldwork practices are a frequent theme at workshops which I run in geography departments on large classes. The immediate stimulus for this article was a workshop in the Department of Geography, University College London, where we brainstormed solutions to fieldwork with more students. The assistance of participants in developing some of the ideas in this article is acknowledged. </p> <p>Correspondence: Alan Jenkins, Centre for Geography in Higher Education, Educational Methods Unit, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK. </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-19">NOTE</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>] There is a popular and effective series of books on teaching methods in higher education. They include 53 Interesting Things To Do In Your Seminars & Tutorials (1987) and 53 Interesting Ways to Assess Your Students (1986). A complete list is available from the publisher, Technical & Educational Services, 37 Ravenswood Road, Bristol BS6 6BW, UK. </p> <hd id="AN9511031769-20">REFERENCES</hd> <p>BBC Enterprises (1987) The Ecodisc (Advanced Entertainment Video) (London, BBC). </p> <p>BULL, P. (1992) Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative: the project of the geography Department, Birkbeck College, IBG Higher Education Study Group Newsletter, Autumn, pp. 7-9. </p> <p>BURGESS, J. & JACKSON, P. (1992) Streetwork--an encounter with place, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 16, pp. 151-157. </p> <p>DES (1992) A Survey of Geography Fieldwork in British Degree Courses (Stanmore, Department of Education & Science). </p> <p>GIBBS, G. (1992a) Teaching more Students: Problems and Course Design Strategies (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff Development). </p> <p>GIBBS, G. (1992b) Assessing More Students (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff Development). </p> <p>GIBBS, G., GOLD, J.R. & HAIGH, M.J. (1992) Over the hills and far away: retaining field study experience despite larger classes, in: G. </p> <p>GIBBS & A. JENKINS (Eds) Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page), pp. 117-129. </p> <p>GIBBS, G. & JENKINS, A. (Eds) (1992) Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page). GOLD, J.R., JENKINS, A., LEE, R. MONK, J., RILEY, J., SHEPHERD, I.D.H. & UNWIN, D.J. (1991) Teaching Geography in Higher Education: a manual of good practice (Oxford, Basil Blackwell). </p> <p>GRAY, M. (1993) A survey of geography fieldwork funding in the `old' universities, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, pp. 33-34. </p> <p>HABESHAW, S., GIBBS, G. & HABESHAW, T. (1992) 53 Problems with Large Classes: Making the Best of a Bad Job (Bristol, Technical & Educational Services). </p> <p>HAIGH, M. & GOLD, J.R. (1993) The problems with fieldwork: a group-based approach towards integrating fieldwork into the undergraduate geography curriculum, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, pp. 21-32. </p> <p>HINDLE, B.P. (1993) The project: putting student controlled small group work and transferable skills at the core of a geography course, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, pp. 11-20. </p> <p>JENKINS, A. & PEPPER, D.M. (1987) Enhancing Employability and Educational Opportunity (Birmingham, Standing Committee on Educational Development). </p> <p>JENKINS, A. & SMITH, P. (1993) Expansion, efficiency and teaching quality: the experience of British Geography Departments 1986-1991, Transactions Institute of British Geographers, N.S., 18(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>), pp. 500-515. </p> <p>KAKELA, P. (1979) Remembering teaching, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 3(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>), pp. 5-12. </p> <p>KEENE, P. (1982) The examination of exposure of pleistocene sediments in the field: a self paced exercise, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 6, pp. 109-121. </p> <p>KEENE, P. (1993) Self-paced distance learning packages for large group fieldwork, in: A. JENKINS (Ed.) Teaching large classes in geography: some practical suggestions, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>), p. 159. </p> <p>MARTIN, D.C. & ARENDALE, D.R. (1992) Supplemented Instruction: improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (University of South Carolina, Division of Continuing Education). </p> <p>McGEE, R. (1991) Handling Hordes: teaching large classes (Educational Video) (Purdue University, Continuing Education Office). </p> <p>McNEE, R.B. (1987) Metropolitan adventure: exploring the hidden city, Journal of Geography, 86, pp. 92-99. </p> <p>PANTON, K. & DILSAVER, L. (1989) Americans in Britain: geographic education and foreign field trips, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 13, pp. 45-54. </p> <p>PARLETT, M. & KING, J. (1971) Concentrated Study: a pedagogic innovation observed (London, Society for Research into Higher Education). </p> <p>RODDOWAY, P. & SLOWE. P. (1993) Student-led problem orientated local fieldwork group projects, in: A. JENKINS (Ed.) Teaching large classes on geography: some practical suggestions, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>), p. 160. </p> <p>SLATER, T.R. (1993) Locality-based studies and the Enterprise Initiative, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, pp. 47-55. </p> <p>WEBSTER, F. (1992) Thinking strategically: a subject group's attempt to maintain quality with reduced resources, in: G. GIBBS & A. JENKINS (Eds) Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page), pp. 138-147. </p> <p>WHEELER, J.O. (1985) Creating local field trips: seeing geographical principles through empirical eyes, Journal of Geography, 84, pp. 217-219. </p> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref6"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ502238
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Thirteen Ways of Doing Fieldwork with Large Classes/More Students.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenkins%2C+Alan%22">Jenkins, Alan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Geography+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Geography in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 1994 18(2):143-154.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1994
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Teachers; Practitioners
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Descriptive<br />Guides - Classroom - Teacher<br />Journal Articles
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Organization%22">Class Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Size%22">Class Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Objectives%22">Educational Objectives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Field+Instruction%22">Field Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geography+Instruction%22">Geography Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Ratio%22">Teacher Student Ratio</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0309-8265
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Discusses problems of maintaining higher education geography fieldwork in an era of increasing class size. Presents and describes 13 strategies for coping with these problems. Recommends that individual teachers and geography departments redesign their fieldwork programs in accordance with their priorities. (CFR)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1995
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ502238
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ502238
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 143
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Objectives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Field Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geography Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Ratio
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Thirteen Ways of Doing Fieldwork with Large Classes/More Students.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenkins, Alan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1994
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0309-8265
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Geography in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1