Implementation of guidelines for effective fieldwork designs: exploring learning activities, learning processes, and student engagement in the classroom and the field

Abstract

Teachers find the implementation of fieldwork challenging. Therefore, this study investigates two teachers' implementation of theoretical guidelines for studentcentered fieldwork activities, following their participation in a professional development course focusing on earth science fieldwork pedagogy. Video observation and instructional artifacts were collected and analyzed using various indicators, including the quality of the learning activities, the types of talk, teacher questions, the focus of student initiatives, and how the students engaged in the learning activities. The results revealed that the teachers implemented the guidelines through two totally different fieldwork designs. In one case, called the linear teacher-dominated fieldwork design, there were clear differences between indicators in the classroom and those in the field. In the field, teacher dominance was reduced, and students were more active and focused on the content. In the other case, the teacher developed an integrated inquiry-based fieldwork design that involved alternating between the classroom and the field as well as using inquiry-based learning activities. The teacher had a reduced role in terms of talk and questioning, and to a large extent, students showed deeper engagement. Notably, in both cases, the learning process and student engagement deteriorated during the follow-up phase. Finally, on the basis of these findings, recommendations for fieldwork designs are discussed.

What happens in classrooms after earth science fieldwork? Supporting student learning processes during follow-up activities

“…This article focuses on follow-up work in classrooms. Although follow-up activities are essential for promoting deep learning from fieldwork (Kent, Gilbertson, & Hunt, 1997;McLoughlin, 2004;Orion, 1993), researchers have observed that students demonstrate lower levels of motivation and learning during follow-up work than during fieldtrips (DeWitt & Hohenstein, 2010;Lai, 1999;Remmen & Frøyland, 2014;Tonts, 2011). Low levels of student learning could be attributed to the nature of the follow-up activities.…”

“…Between the course gatherings, the teachers were required to adopt these strategies to implement fieldwork with their students. After the professional development course was completed, we collected data from the classroom and fieldwork activities carried out by teachers and students (also described in Remmen & Frøyland, 2014).…”

«Utvidet klasserom» – Et verktøy for å designe uteundervisning i naturfag

“…Med disse funnene oppdaget vi at TfU og Orions modell (1993) ikke nødvendigvis hjalp laererne til å designe og gjennomføre feltundervisning som stimulerte elevenes dybdelaering. Dette poenget utdypes nedenfor med funn som fikk betydning for utviklingen av «Utvidet klasserom» (publisert i Remmen & Frøyland, 2014;2015a;2015b).…”

Integrating Spatial Technology into Fieldtrips within Elementary Geography Education

“…Field experience within the local area motivates students to actively participate in discovering relevant places and making sense of them in the context of a particular topic (Fuller, 2006;Gaillard & McSherry, 2014). Prior studies indicate that fieldtrips combining classroom and field activities help students to engage in a process of inquiry (Huang, 2011b;Remmen & Froyland, 2013). Moreover, using space as a framework to understand local affairs helps students to develop observational skills and to synthesize complex information about the world around them.…”