Creating a temporary community? An ethnographic study of a residential fieldtrip

Contested Perspectives on the Social Impacts of a Residential Field Trip

“…Plentiful opportunities to interact with different people, all of whom were sharing the same experience, were observed to facilitate conversations, enhance friendships, boost confidence, improve co-operation levels and expand the network of social relationships for many participants. Evolving social relationships on the trip, within the confined setting, also helped to foster sentiments akin to a traditional community (Gee, 2015), resonating with the findings of Smith, Steel, and Gidlow (2010) on adventure education in New Zealand.…”

“…Plentiful opportunities to interact with different people, all of whom were sharing the same experience, were observed to facilitate conversations, enhance friendships, boost confidence, improve cooperation levels, and expand the network of social relationships for many participants. Evolving social relationships on the trip, within the confined setting, also helped to foster sentiments akin to a traditional community (Gee, 2015a), resonating with the findings of Smith et al (2010) on adventure education in New Zealand. Community identification was built around a bounded location (Parsons, 1951), networks of social relationships based upon lived interdependence (Abrams & McCullock, 1976), and a spirit of commonality founded upon shared values and norms (Lee & Newby, 1983), all of which were temporarily (and artificially) replicated on the field trip and align with notions of a collectivist social unit (Schwartz, 1990).…”

“…Outdoor learning in residential settings provides powerful opportunities for group social cohesion, where school norms around space and power can be challenged and adapted, with resulting positive impacts upon individual and group relationships (Gee, 2015(Gee, , 2015a. The delineated duration combined with the altered physical setting helps to foster a temporary, psychological sense of community, underpinned by feelings of membership, interdependence, shared connections and 'in-jokes' (Smith, Steel, & Gidlow, 2010).…”

“…This article contributes to experiential education literature by adopting an ethnographic exploration of an outdoor education program, considering the perspective of one student's experience within the context of teachers' collectivist socialization goals. It is based upon participation in, and observation of, a week-long residential field trip and builds upon previous ethnographic research focusing on developing community sentiments and the positive impacts on social relationships (Gee, 2015a). However, such manifestations are not necessarily universal (Gee, 2015b), and this research considers the underexplored negative experiences of an individual trip participant, in the context of a program promoting collectivist beliefs.…”

Robert Grosseteste and Theories of Education

“…Physical activity, practical dimensions, first-hand participation and embodiment in situ can all be readily embraced by the dynamic interaction of new knowledge and experiences in a learning context where motivation levels are increased (Boyle et al 2007;Dillon et al 2005) and cognitive outcomes enhanced (Ballantyne & Packer 2002;Rosenthal & Lee 2009). Fluid social interaction acts as a catalyst in an outdoor environment where group cohesion and social relationships can flourish (Farnham & Mutrie 1997;Gee 2015;Mygind 2009). This includes teacher-learner relationships, whereby the absence of formal, school-imposed protocols and barriers, proliferates opportunities for co-exploration .…”