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

Abstract

Follow-up activities after fieldwork are recommended, yet little research has been conducted in this area. This study investigates six cases of follow-up work carried out by three teachers and their students in three upper secondary schools in Norway. The data comprises video observations of teachers and students, instructional artifacts, students' end products (e.g., oral presentations), and post-interviews with teachers. The data are analyzed according to: (1) recommendations for follow-up work and (2) the level of student performance (i.e., talk, actions, etc.) while undertaking the activities. The findings revealed that the teachers implemented follow-up work mostly in line with recommendations. However, the findings regarding students' learning processes revealed that low-level performance prevailed during follow-up activities. The two most promising cases are described in detail to enable a discussion of ways of improving recommendations of how student learning processes can be supported during follow-up work. Hence, we propose that students should be given learning tasks that require them to suggest a solution to a dilemma and use field data to justify their solution. The dilemma could profitably involve replication of an actual situation. In addition, follow-up work should be divided into two sub-phases: interpretation of field data and creation of an end product.

Supporting student learning processes during preparation, fieldwork and follow-up work: Examples from upper secondary school in Norway

“…In our research project on geoscience in upper secondary school, the recommendations described above were applied by three teachers and their students. Our analyses of video data from the implementation resulted in the following key findings (Remmen & Frøyland, 2013;2014;2015):…”

“…Therefore, in our research project, we used a different approach than the above studies: we investigated what happened to student learning processes when teachers actually implemented geoscientific fieldwork including classroom preparation and follow-up work (Remmen & Frøyland, 2013;2014;2015). One key finding was that the learning activities did not always contribute largely to student learning processes.…”

The potential of chest mounted action cameras in early childhood education research

“…Although an action camera is a relatively new data collection tool in research, some studies have been published. These studies have primarily tested the head-mounted camera as a data collection tool for understanding social life and experiences (Brown, Dilley & Marshall, 2008) and in learning sciences (Beddal-Hill & Raper, 2010;Blikstad-Balas & Sørvik, 2015;Frøyland et al, 2015;Kindt, 2011;Maltese, Balliet, & Riggs, 2013;McCaslin, Young, & Kesireddy, 2014;Remmen & Frøyland, 2014, 2015a, 2015bStolpe & Bjorklund, 2012). Although all of these studies used some form of action camera (head-mounted), two studies especially explored its use more thoroughly.…”

“…People who have not consented to be recorded might be present in the video. Remmen and Frøyland (2014, 2015a, 2015b have used action cameras extensively in classrooms and in fieldwork. These studies use action cameras mounted on teachers and students to collect data to analyse learning processes in geoscience in upper secondary school.…”

«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).…”