Geography fieldwork, fieldwork value and learning styles

International Research in Geographical and Environmental EducationVol. 18, No. 1, February 2009, 19–28

Geography fieldwork, fieldwork value and learning styles

Alison Dunphya and Greg Spellmanb∗

aSaffron Walden County High School, Saffron Walden, UK; bSchool of Applied Sciences,University of Northampton, Northampton, UK

Fieldwork is considered central to an education as a physical geographer. However, thereare doubts whether all students benefit from it equally. A preferred way of learning mayhave an influence upon its perceived value. Attitude surveys were administered to 11912nd- and 3rd-year physical geography undergraduates across 16 British universities.The survey assessed individuals’ perception of the “value” of fieldwork and also theirpreferred learning style (using Kolb’s LSI). A total of 421 returns (35%) were analysedusing multivariate analysis. Seven groups of students emerge with respect to the valuethey place on fieldwork. There was an overall positive view, especially with respectto the social aspects. However the hypothesis that learning style affects the value offieldwork appears unfounded in this instance.

Keywords: fieldwork; learning style; perceived value; physical geography;undergraduates

Introduction

Fieldwork is considered by many as intrinsic to the nature of physical geography (Goldet al., 1991; Nairn, Higgitt, & Vanneste, 2000) and is recognised as being one of the mosteffective and enjoyable methods of teaching and learning (Kent, Gilbertson, & Hunt, 1997).Furthermore, Gold et al. (1991) indicate that there are a number of transferable skills gainedthrough fieldwork, which Livingstone (1999) has recognised as being desirable qualities byemployers, and therefore requirements for graduates making the transition to the workforce.

However, despite the significance of fieldwork in physical geography education, thereare a number of concerns. Fieldwork costs are not only of consequence to higher educationinstitutions (Fuller, Gaskin, & Scott, 2003), but also to students, and potentially increasinglyso with the introduction of top-up fees in the United Kingdom from the 2006/2007 academicyear (DirectGov, 2005). Furthermore, preparation for, and administration of fieldwork,is often time-consuming (Fuller et al., 2003) and its associated health and safety risksrequire careful consideration (Nash, 2000). Finally, Fuller, Edmondson, France, Higgitt,and Ratinen (2002) question the centrality of fieldwork to geography, while Maguire (1998)contests the actual value of the learning that takes place.

One possible concern is that not all students will benefit from fieldwork in the same way.Gold et al. (1991) reveal that considerable amount of research has shown that students learnin different ways, and in particular Kolb, Rubin and Osland (1995) have recognised that“learning styles” differ between students. Honey and Mumford (1992) specify a learning

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN: 1038-2046 print / 1747-7611 onlineC© 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10382040802591522http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

20 A. Dunphy and G. Spellman

style as a summary of the characteristics that establish a person’s ideal way of learning.Through experiential learning theory, Kolb (1984) identifies the following four learningmodes: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualisation(AC) and active experimentation (AE). In addition, Kolb’s (1984) theory realises thatparticular learning environments and subjects suit some more than others depending upontheir preferred way of learning.

A growing awareness of an increasingly disparate student cohort (Healey, Kneale, &Bradbeer, 2005) and questions surrounding the inclusivity of physical geography fieldwork(see Hall, Healey, & Harrison, 2004), combined with controversy regarding its value,demonstrates a requirement for studies in this area. Healey, Kneale, and Bradbeer (2005)noted the absence of studies regarding learning styles amongst geography undergraduates.The aim of this study was to use multivariate statistical analysis to examine the studentperspective of the value of physical geography fieldwork, and then view the relationshipbetween this and students’ perceived learning styles, to determine if it affects the experienceprovided by the fieldwork.

Data collection

The research was undertaken in Spring 2006. Institutions were selected by a stratifiedrandom sampling procedure. The Guardian Newspaper University Rankings for Geography(2004) were used as a sample framework (two institutions selected from each decile). Theoverall sample size was 1191, and the number of responses was 421 – a response rate of35% (Table 1).

An attitude survey was designed (based on an in-house focus-group discussion) toestablish the student perception of the value of physical geography fieldwork. Ten studentswere selected from the University of Northampton geography cohort. The groups displayeda range of academic abilities, age and previous fieldwork experiences. The discussionswere recorded and the transcripts were then analysed to identify main themes related to the

Table 1. Summary of response rates to the distribution of the attitude survey.

Predicted Number of Responsesample size responses rate (%)

Canterbury Christchurch University (41)∗ 30 13 43Coventry University (26) 40 20 50Edge Hill College of Higher Education (80) 36 18 50Queen’s University Belfast (70) 300 164 55University College London (7) 58 (email) 10 17University of Birmingham (36) 200 (email) 18 9University of Brighton (54) 50 0 0University of Derby (49) 50 22 44University of Gloucester (35) 30 12 40University of Leicester (63) 82 21 26University of Northampton (53) 50 34 68University of Oxford (2) 50 9 18University of Plymouth (29) 64 42 66University of Reading (12) 10 (email) 4 40University of Sheffield (19) 103 5 5University of Worcester (62) 38 29 76Total postal 923 389 42Total emails 268 32 12Overall total 1191 421 35

∗The number in parenthesis refers to Guardian Newspaper University Rankings for Geography (2004).

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 21

Table 2. Fieldwork statements used in the attitude survey.

1. You can study physical geography without fieldwork2. I become a more proficient physical geographer with each subsequent field course3. I think getting to know my fellow students and lecturers benefits my learning4. I gain a deeper understanding of physical geography through fieldwork5. I achieve better grades for fieldwork than other academic work6. Fieldwork in “exotic” locations makes learning easier than UK-based fieldwork7. I prefer group work8. Residential fieldwork (i.e. overnight stays) is more beneficial than single-day fieldwork9. I see fieldwork as a holiday

10. Fieldwork clarifies what I have learned in lectures11. I find it difficult to remain motivated and focussed during fieldwork12. Fieldwork is an essential part of physical geography13. Field sketching helps me to analyse landforms14. I feel, I know the lecturers and my fellow students better after fieldwork15. Fieldwork that I have undertaken has been value for money.16. The assessment related to fieldwork often enhances my learning and understanding18. The main advantage of fieldwork is the opportunity to increase my physical geography

knowledge17. Fieldwork is inspirational19. I enjoy the challenge of trying to establish the formation of a landform20. Fieldwork that I have done has integrated well with other aspects of my course21. Virtual fieldwork can replace “real” fieldwork22. Fieldwork is too time-consuming and this could affect my learning23. I chose my undergraduate course mainly because of the fieldwork locations offered24. I had a good prior knowledge of physical geography before undertaking my degree25. I am always prepared before fieldwork and know what is expected of me

student experience, or perception, of the value of fieldwork. Twenty-five statements wereselected (Table 2).

Student perception of their learning styles was established using Kolb’s (1984) ex-periential learning theory (Healey & Jenkins, 2000). Kolb identifies four learning styles.Concrete Experience can be expressed as “knowledge by acquaintance” or learning throughdirect practical experience as opposed to “knowledge about something”, which is essen-tially theoretical and represented by AC. Reflective Observation concentrates on learningthrough meaning, or what the experience means to the experienced (or its connotations),while AE transforms the theory of AC by identifying a learning type that tests theory inpractical situations. The process starts with the questions contained in Table 3 and answersare then scored using the rules given in Table 4.

The learning mode scores were calculated to determine values for CE, RO, AC andAE by adding the responses to statements. To establish learner types (accommodators,divergers, assimilators and convergers), the appropriate scores were calculated to establishto what extent respondents emphasise abstractness over concreteness (AC–CE) and actionover reflection (AE–RO) (Kolb, 1984) (Figure 1). Once the scores were calculated for eachrespondent, the mean scores for AC–CE and AE–RO were used to position the primaryaxes and ultimately determine respondent-learner types with respect to this sample.

Results and analysis

Overview

Following the application of principal component analysis on the value statements, 11 prin-cipal components were extracted, which explained 80% of the original variance. Componentscores were then subjected to Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis. This technique grouped


Table 3. The learning styles section of the attitude survey (after theUniversity of Northampton, 2005).

1. (a) I like to get involved a =(b) I like to take my time before acting b =(c) I am particular about what I like c =(d) I like things to be useful d =

2. (a) I like to try things out a =(b) I like to analyse and break things into parts b =(c) I am open to new experiences c =(d) I like to look at all sides of issues d =

3. (a) I like to watch a =(b) I like to follow my feelings b =(c) I like to be doing things c =(d) I like to think about things d =

4. (a) I accept people and situations the way they are a =(b) I like to be aware of what is around me b =(c) I like to evaluate c =(d) I like to take risks d =

5. (a) I have gut feelings and hunches a =(b) I have a lot of questions b =(c) I am logical c =(d) I am hard-working and get things done d =

6. (a) I like things that I can see, feel, touch or smell a =(b) I like to be active b =(c) I like to observe c =(d) I like ideas and theories d =

7. (a) I prefer learning in the here and now a =(b) I like to consider and think about things b =(c) I tend to think about the future c =(d) I like to see the results of my work d =

8. (a) I have to try things out for myself a =(b) I rely on my own ideas b =(c) I rely on my observations c =(d) I rely on my feelings d =

9. (a) I am quiet and reserved a =(b) I am energetic and enthusiastic b =(c) I tend to reason things out c =(d) I am responsible about things d =

Table 4. The scoring system used to determine learning style of respondents to the attitudesurvey. Only the scores for those statement that responses in each column contributetowards the total for each column (after the University of Northampton, 2005).

CE RO AC AE

1a = 1b = 2b = 2a =2c = 2d = 3d = 3c =3b = 3a = 4c = 6b =4a = 6c = 6d = 7b =8d = 8c = 8b = 8a =9b = 9a = 9c = 9d =Total = Total = Total = Total =


Figure 1. The primary axes for Kolb’s (1984) LSI.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for mean score per respondent for all value statements.

N Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

371∗ 2.30 0.51 1.14 4.33

∗Sample reduced by “spoilt” survey papers.

the sample into seven clusters or “Value Groups (VG)” that represent students who have re-sponded in similar ways to the statements. Mean value scores were then calculated for eachrespondent with lower scores representing a higher value of fieldwork (the lowest possiblescore is 1 and the highest 5). The mean score per value statement is 2.30 representing anoverall positive perception of fieldwork (Table 5).

The differences between each VG are demonstrated by the distribution of mean valuescores, providing clarification on how the members of each value group perceive thefieldwork. The findings in Table 6 show that with a mean score of 1.62, VG-4 containsthe respondents who are the most positive about the value of fieldwork and VG7 containsrespondents who value fieldwork the least positive. Application of an ANOVA test revealsthat there are significant differences between VGs (f = 293.50, p ≤ 0.05). Considering this,a qualitative descriptor of respondent types can be applied to each of the VGs.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the mean score per respondent of all value statements sortedby VGs.

VG N Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum VG respondent types

1 119 2.05 0.18 1.67 2.48 Believers2 38 2.33 0.16 2.00 2.62 Acceptors3 37 2.92 0.23 2.52 3.38 Discarders4 60 1.62 0.17 1.14 1.95 Addicts5 60 2.50 0.18 2.10 2.86 Moderates6 37 2.58 0.24 2.29 3.48 Unappreciatives7 20 3.41 0.46 2.38 4.33 Sceptics


Table 7. Mean value scores for each learning mode and overall mean value scores.

CE RO AC AE

Addicts (4) 16.89 13.80 14.87 18.84Believers (1) 15.93 14.66 14.79 18.68Acceptors (2) 14.24 15.47 14.82 17.29Moderates (5) 14.92 15.68 15.63 17.24Unappreciatives (6) 15.32 15.09 14.59 17.53Discarders (3) 15.20 16.09 14.67 16.61Sceptics (7) 13.65 14.82 13.77 17.29Overall 15.48 14.98 14.86 17.92

Correlation between certain statements demonstrates that there is a significant positiverelationship and responses are reliable. For example, comparing statements 1 and 12,r = 0.472 and p ≤ 0.05 and comparing statements 1 and 2, r = 0.243 and p ≤ 0.05.

Assessing the value of fieldwork

The mean value statement scores for male and female respondents show little difference(T = −0.32, p ≥ 0.05) between the two, with male respondents (2.29) being only slightlymore positive than female respondents (2.31). There is a small, but significant (T = 2.03,p ≤ 0.05) difference between the mean value score of 2nd- and 3rd-year undergraduates,with the latter group (2.24) perceiving fieldwork as slightly more valuable than the former(2.35).

Learning styles

Overall, most respondents place higher emphasis on the AE and CE learning modes withmean scores of 17.92 and 15.48 respectively and lesser emphasis upon RO and AC (Table 7).An ANOVA test shows that there is a significant difference between the respondents in eachof the learning style groups (f = 60.51, p ≤ 0.05).

Addicts and believers have the highest mean score for CE and sceptics the lowest(Table 7). Discarders have the highest score for RO and addicts, the group that valuefieldwork the most, demonstrate the lowest score. All VGs score relatively highly for AE.Nonetheless, addicts and believers command the most emphasis on this learning mode.

Learner types and value scores

To determine the learning type the mean scores AC–CE and AE–RO (0.63 and 2.96respectively) were used to place the primary axes. This means that most respondentsare accommodators with assimilators representing just over a quarter of all respondents(Table 8). Typical characteristics of learner modes are shown in Table 9. Divergers are the

Table 8. Distribution of overall learner types and mean value scores.

Learner types N % Mean value score Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

Accommodators 125 35.92 2.24 0.51 1.29 3.86Divergers 59 16.95 2.36 0.57 1.14 4.00Convergers 71 20.40 2.24 0.56 1.33 4.33Assimilators 93 26.72 2.39 0.41 1.48 3.29


Table 9. Typical characteristics of each learner style (after Healey et al., 2005).

Accommodator (AE and CE) Diverger (CE and RO)

Can carry out plans Imaginative and good at generating ideasInterested in action and results Can view situations from many anglesAdapts to immediate circumstances Open to experienceTrial-and-error approach Recognises problemsSets objectives and schedules InvestigatesLikes a practical, experiential approach Senses opportunities

Prefers to watch than act and uses imagination tosolve problems

Converger (AC and AE) Assimilator (RO and AC)Good at practical applications Able to theoriseMakes decisions Compares alternativesFocuses effort Defines problemsEvaluates plans Establishes criteriaSelects from alternatives Formulates hypothesesSolves problems Takes a concise, logical approachPrefers technical tasks Prefers a good explanation to hands-on experience

smallest group at 17% of the sample. The mean value scores for each of the learner typesshow that they all place a relatively high value on fieldwork. However, the accommodatorsand convergers place the highest value upon fieldwork with a mean score of 2.24. Thelearner type placing the lowest value on fieldwork are the assimilators with a mean valuescore of 2.39. Application of ANOVA shows there is no significant difference between thefour learner types and the average value score per respondent (f = 2.31, p ≥ 0.05).

Discussion and conclusions

Value

Fieldwork is evidently valued by most students and is considered a unique feature of geog-raphy. Overall findings show no difference between male and female respondents in theirvalue of fieldwork. 3rd-year undergraduates value fieldwork more than 2nd-year students.Kolb (1984) argues that learning takes place through experience and reflection. Conse-quently, these findings could be a result of 3rd-year undergraduates possessing increasedknowledge and understanding of physical geography having undertaken more fieldwork.Furthermore, having the opportunity to reflect upon these experiences may help them toappreciate more the aims and objectives of fieldwork.

Certainly the view by many that fieldwork is fundamental to physical geography (Goldet al., 1991) is relatively unchallenged by the majority of respondents in this study. Oneof the main themes emerging from this research is that the social aspect of fieldwork isconsistently given the highest value over learning and practical aspects, and the position offieldwork in geography. Five of the seven value groups rated it above these other factorsalthough the sceptics did not value this aspect at all.

The addicts (14% of the sample) are overwhelmingly positive regarding the large major-ity of social, learning and practical aspects, as well as the position of fieldwork in physicalgeography. The most valued aspects for this VG are the learning benefits and opportunitiesto develop as a physical geographer. Furthermore, the group considers fieldwork a funda-mental element of physical geography and strongly acknowledges fieldwork’s inspirationalvalue.


The largest group (28%), the believers are also very positive about the value of field-work. What separates them from the addicts is the degree to which they express thispositive view. The acceptors (9%) generally express very positive views, although morerespondents tend to express a more neutral view than the believers. The majority of mod-erates (14%) do not consider fieldwork central to physical geography. Nevertheless, theydo believe that it develops them as a physical geographer. The unappreciatives (9%) arerelatively neutral overall, but very positive about the social benefits and the position offieldwork, while the discarders (14%) are unsure about the position of fieldwork, whichis substantiated by their neutral view regarding the opportunities to develop as a physicalgeographer.

As the VG representing those who value fieldwork the least in this study, the sceptics(6%) are almost completely negative about the social benefits of fieldwork. Furthermore,these respondents perceive that they do not learn or develop as a consequence. In addition,this group considers fieldwork time-consuming and feel they are not adequately preparedbeforehand. However, surprisingly, the majority states that they chose their degree coursesbased upon fieldwork locations offered by the institution.

A potential explanation for these negative views, which are particularly focussed uponthe social aspects, could reflect a number of factors. For example, Maguire and Edmondson(2001) allude to a lack of confidence in a peer group setting or an unwillingness to work ingroups for fear of loss of individuality or control.

Learning styles and the value of fieldwork

The majority of respondents favour the CE and AE learning modes and consequently ac-commodator is the most represented learning style. However, there is also significant repre-sentation of the other learning styles, particularly the assimilator style. There are differingopinions within the literature regarding the learning styles of geographers. Kolb (1984)believes geographers are inclined towards the abstract conceptualisation and reflective ob-servation modes, and therefore the assimilator learner type. However, this observation ismade relative to students studying other subjects. In studying solely geography studentsinternationally, Healey et al. (2005) discover that assimilators are the dominant learnertype. Alternatively, Nulty and Barrett (1996) discovered that Australian geography studentsmainly possessed the accommodator learner type. Furthermore, this research reports thatlearning styles are not absolute and that students may change and adapt their learning stylesthrough the course of their degree. Another factor for consideration is the diversity of ge-ography as a subject (Healey & Jenkins, 2000; QAA, 2007), which could see geographersemerge with a range of learner types. This latter point could be consistent with this study.The exact content of each degree programme is unknown, and therefore students may studysome human geography or another unrelated discipline, which may explain the range oflearner types found. These discussions endorse the argument of Healey and Jenkins (2000)that merely reporting a numerical majority as a predominant learning style is inadvisableand obscures the range of learning styles; this would seem an appropriate conclusion withthis research.

The hypothesis that a particular learner type values fieldwork more than another appearsunfounded, with no significant difference between the learner types and the respective meanvalue scores. The fact that there are almost equal proportions of accommodators in the addictand sceptic VGs potentially substantiates this. However, the value statements within theattitude survey were unweighted, and certain aspects of fieldwork could be more significantthan others in terms of value.


A number of students experienced difficulty in completing the learning styles sectionof the attitude survey. This appeared to be primarily focussed upon the difficulty in dis-tinguishing the statements from one another and ranking them as requested. Naturally,this issue will have had an influence upon the emerging learning styles. One respondentexpressed this difficulty by stating

I can be all of these at different times. (Female, 3rd-year undergraduate, 18–25).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that overall, the majority of students perceive physical geographyfieldwork as a highly valuable pedagogic device, which provides all the subject specificand transferable skills suggested by Gold et al. (1991). Furthermore, these findings agreewith students’ views from similar studies (see Fuller et al., 2003). However, there areindications that not all feel they are being benefitted from fieldwork as much, althoughthese respondents appear to represent the minority.

Upon investigation of learning styles in relation to the value of fieldwork, there appearsto be no correlation between the two. There is a higher representation of the accommodatorlearner type within the top two VGs; however, they are also the most represented learnertypes within the lowest VG. This study has revealed a range of learner types – a findingthat could be attributed to the broad ranging nature of the geography curriculum.

The high regard attributed to social and inspirational values appears to relate to affectiveresponses discussed by Kern and Carpenter (1984). While these aspects may seem super-ficial and academically unimportant, they clearly influence students and motivate them tolearn, and certainly direct them to consider fieldwork extremely valuable or otherwise.

Fieldwork is under constant scrutiny with respect to the learning experience it provides,therefore the need for regular ongoing evaluation is clear. This is especially apparentwith dynamic, wide-ranging student cohort and changing financial situations for bothinstitutions and perhaps more importantly, students, who after all, are the ultimate reasonfor the existence of fieldwork. Research aims should be to continue to ensure fieldwork as avalued and inclusive experience that produces balanced learners with enthusiasm for theirsubject.

ReferencesDirectGov. (2005). Study first, pay back when you’re earning. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from

http://studentfinance.direct.gov.ukFuller, I., Edmondson, S., France, D., Higgitt, D., & Ratinen, I. (2002). International perspectives

on the effectiveness of geography fieldwork for learning. Retrieved September 11, 2005, fromhttp://www.gees.ac.uk

Fuller, I., Gaskin, S., & Scott, I. (2003). Student perceptions of geography and environmental sciencefieldwork in the light of restricted access to the field, caused by foot and mouth disease in theUK in 2001. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(1), 79–102.

Gold, J.R., Jenkins, A., Lee, R., Mink, J., Riley, J., Shepherd, I., et al. (1991). Teaching geography inhigher education. Oxford: Blackwell.

Guardian Newspapers Limited. (2004). University rankings: Geography. Retrieved May 16, 2005,from http://education.guardian.co.uk

Hall, T., Healey, M., & Harrison, M. (2004). Fieldwork and disabled students: Discourses of exclusionand inclusion. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(2), 255–280.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Learning cycles and learning styles: The application of Kolb’sexperiential learning model in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99, 185–195.


Healey, M., Kneale, P., & Bradbeer, J. (2005). Learning styles among geography undergraduates: Aninternational comparison. Area, 37(1), 30–42.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey.Kent, M., Gilbertson, D.D., & Hunt, C.O. (1997). Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review

of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 313–332.Kern, E., & Carpenter, J. (1984). Enhancement of student values, interests and attitudes in earth

science through a field-oriented approach. Journal of Geological Education, 21(3), 313–332.Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M., & Osland, J.S. (1995). Organisational behaviour: An experiential approach.

6th ed. Prentice-Hall International. New Jersey.Livingstone, I. (1999). Role-playing planning public inquiries. Journal of Geography in Higher

Education, 23(1), 63–76.Maguire, S. (1998). Group projects: An effective fieldwork teaching strategy. Earth Sciences Teachers

Association Occasional Series, No. 2 (pp. 39–42).Maguire, S., & Edmondson, S. (2001). Student evaluation and assessment of group projects. Journal

of Geography in Higher Education, 25(2), 209–217.Nairn, K., Higgitt, D., & Vanneste, D. (2000). International perspectives on field courses. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 246–254.Nash, D.J. (2000). Doing independent overseas fieldwork 1: Practicalities and pitfalls. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 24(1), 139–149.Nulty, D.D., & Barrett, M.A. (1996). Transitions in students’ learning styles. Studies in Higher

Education, 21(3), 333–345.QAA Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2007). Subject benchmark statements –

geography. Retrieved April 2008, from http://www.qaa.ac.ukUniversity of Northampton. (2005). Personal development plan: Learning styles questionnaire.

Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://blackboard.northampton.ac.uk

Documents

Geography fieldwork, fieldwork value and learning styles