Combining research-based student fieldwork with staff research to reinforce teaching and learning

This article was downloaded by: [Massey University Library]On: 12 August 2014, At: 19:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Geography in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgh20

Combining research-based studentfieldwork with staff research toreinforce teaching and learningIan C. Fullera, Antony Mellorb & Jane A. Entwistleb

a Physical Geography Group, Institute of Agriculture &Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, NewZealandb Department of Geography, Faculty of Engineering &Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE17RU, UKPublished online: 01 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Ian C. Fuller, Antony Mellor & Jane A. Entwistle (2014) Combining research-based student fieldwork with staff research to reinforce teaching and learning, Journal ofGeography in Higher Education, 38:3, 383-400, DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2014.933403

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.933403

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03098265.2014.933403

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.933403

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Combining research-based student fieldwork with staff research toreinforce teaching and learning

Ian C. Fullera*, Antony Mellorb and Jane A. Entwistleb

aPhysical Geography Group, Institute of Agriculture & Environment, Massey University,Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; bDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Engineering &Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

(Received 5 December 2013; final version received 8 June 2014)

This paper addresses the relationship between teaching and research in a fieldworkcontext by seeking student views over 3 years across two institutions to assess theperceived value of blending staff research activity with student fieldwork. Studentviews were solicited using questionnaires. Despite the contrasting environments,locations and approaches of the institutions’ respective field courses, studentperceptions are remarkably similar. Engaging in research activity in fieldwork (andspecifically combining research-based student fieldwork with staff research) isperceived strongly to add value to study for a degree, as well as stimulate interest in thesubject and improve understanding of methodologies employed.

Keywords: Physical Geography; fieldwork; problem-based learning; research–teaching nexus; research-based fieldwork

Introduction

Internationally, the relationship between teaching and research in higher education has

been the focus of extended discussion (e.g. Boyer, 1990; Brew & Boud, 1995; Hattie &

Marsh, 1996; Healey, 2005; Kenny et al., 2001; Melese, 2012; Zubrick, Reid, & Rossiter

2001). The debate has been summarized by Prince, Felder, and Brent (2007), as being

between those who argue that research supports teaching and that synergies between

research and teaching occur in principle; while others question the efficacy of practice linking

teaching with research in many institutions. It is not the intention of this paper to

comprehensively review this debate, but rather to contribute robust evidencewhich reinforces

the principle that research and teaching are synergetic by providing evidence based on

practice that links research-based student fieldworkwith staff research activity. This evidence

is drawn from two different higher education systems (UK and New Zealand), both of which

espouse the value and significance of linking teaching with research.

A strong relationship between teaching and research in undergraduate Geography has

been perceived to enhance the attractiveness of the subject in the UK (Quality Assurance

Agency [QAA], 2007). Here, the QAA 2007 Benchmark Statement for Geography states,

“Geographers should have an understanding of the vital contribution made by research in

their discipline to the development of knowledge, particularly in terms of the influence of

recent research” (QAA, 2007, p. 2). The New Zealand Ministry of Education (2002)

proposed that undergraduates learn to take a research-based approach to lifelong learning,

which would be embedded within a research culture in the universities. The New Zealand

Education Amendment Act (1990, Section 162) defines a university as a place where

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 2014

Vol. 38, No. 3, 383–400, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.933403

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.933403

Teaching and research are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by peoplewho are active in advancing knowledge.

The link between teaching and research is fundamental in a university curriculum, and

without it a key distinctive of Higher Education, which enjoins staff research with student

learning, is lost. This is affirmed by Jenkins (2003, p. 2) who states:

What is distinctive about higher education is that there is a close interconnection between staffresearch and student learning.

There are several levels at which teaching and research intersect, and therefore

opportunities from which students may derive benefit, including: students’ use of staff

research data, development of appreciation of research in the subject, development of

research skills, completion of tailored assignments such as inquiry- or problem-based

learning and students taking the role of research assistants in staff projects (Healey, 2005).

Griffiths (2004) distinguishes several different relationships between teaching and

research, notably: research-led teaching, where content is directly based on staff specialist

research interest, and teaching is based on traditional information transmission; research-

based teaching, where courses are structured around or include inquiry-based activity;

research-oriented teaching, where inquiry skills and knowledge generation are

emphasized and research-informed teaching, which draws on systematic enquiry into

the learning process. Inevitably, these terms need not be mutually exclusive (Healey,

2005). Spronken-Smith, Mirosa, and Darrou (2013) indicate that a research-led emphasis

has moved towards a more research-informed basis of late. Certainly, the situation has

moved on from the mid-1990s, when Brew and Boud (1995, p. 261) wrote:

investigations of the links between teaching and research . . . have failed to establish thenature of the connection between the two or, indeed, whether there is one.

Hattie and Marsh (1996) also found that teaching and research were “at best . . .

loosely coupled” (p. 529) and argued that more needed to be done to strengthen the links

between good teaching and high research productivity (Hattie & Marsh, 2004). Since the

1990s, there has indeed been an increased interest in forging the linkages between teaching

and research. Jenkins (2000) argued that courses should be designed, and teaching and

research organized, in ways that ensured students benefit from staff research. Jenkins,

Breen, Lindsay, and Brew (2003) set out a range of strategies to design courses that

explicitly link teaching and research, which included developing research ability and

providing student experience of research. At the same time, Zamorski (2000) suggested

that students value studying in a research-rich environment, a conclusion that was also

drawn from work in the early 1990s by Neumann (1994). Jenkins, Healey, and Zetter

(2007) went on to review the research–teaching nexus and argued that students place

considerable value on research-based learning for a variety of reasons, including students

seeing their courses as being up to date and exciting. However, it is not sufficient that

students are simply taught by research-active individuals; there ought to be a clear

relationship between staff research and student learning such that students are the

pedagogic beneficiaries of staff research activity. Healey, Jordan, Pell, and Short (2010)

argue that an effective way to ensure students benefit from staff research is to encourage

the development of the students’ own research skills, which in turn are developed by

inquiry- or problem-based learning. LeHeron, Baker, and McEwen (2006) envisaged this

as a co-learning opportunity between staff and students. This is most clearly demonstrated

where students are themselves involved in that staff research activity, and not just as

willing participants in yet another student survey on pedagogic practice, but as active

384 I.C. Fuller et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

contributors to and/or beneficiaries of that research. LeHeron et al. (2006, p. 78) define co-

learning as

coordinated and targeted approaches to maximizing the synergetic relationships betweenresearch and teaching . . .

Engaging students in staff research projects is therefore conceived as a powerful means

of maximizing the synergies between research and teaching, and it is this engagement

using the medium of fieldwork at staff research sites that is the focus of this paper.

The role of fieldwork

In Geography, research is perceived to be a gathering of information in the (real) world to

answer a question, which Robertson and Blackler (2006) argue is inextricably linked with

fieldwork in the mind of students. Fieldwork certainly provides an opportunity to engage at

each level of intersection between teaching and research and provides for the possibility of

teaching that is research-led, -based, -oriented and -informed, sometimes in one stand-alone

field course, which provides a clearmedium to link teaching and research (Hill,Woodland, &

Spalding, 2004; James, Heinson, & Schmidt-Mumm, 2003). Edwards (2003, p. 20) stated:

Research and teaching may be successfully linked to the mutual benefit of both academic staffand students . . . this is particularly relevant where fieldwork is involved. Staff research that isfed into teaching may stimulate student research, which, in turn, feeds back into staff researchand teaching, and so on.

The perception that fieldwork is a primary means for students to engage directly in

research within Geography (Harris & Tweed, 2010) provides a clear and important

opportunity to develop the teaching–research nexus. In university-wide surveys,

Spronken-Smith et al. (2013) found that between 23% and 32% students identified

involvement in fieldwork as providing an awareness or experience of research. The

advantage to Geography is surely the centrality of fieldwork to the discipline (Fuller,

Gaskin, & Scott, 2003; Lonergan & Andresen, 1988; Scott, Fuller, & Gaskin, 2006), such

that fieldwork ought to be a primary means of developing the link between teaching and

research to reinforce student learning. A “discovery” (Keene, 1991) inquiry- or research-

based (Griffiths, 2004) approach to field teaching does lend itself to engaging with

research (Harris & Tweed, 2010). An inquiry-based approach to teaching per se ought to

strengthen the teaching–research nexus (Spronken-Smith & Kingham, 2009), and in 2009

Spronken-Smith and Hilton reported that the quality of the research experience perceived

by students was improved by adoption of inquiry-based learning in a field research

methods course at Otago University, which became overtly inquiry-/research-based. Hill

et al. (2004) provide another example of a research-based field course in which teaching

and research were overtly linked to promote a deep approach to learning (see also Hill &

Woodland, 2002). Fuller, Brook, and Holt (2010) evaluated the role of fieldwork in

embedding research in undergraduate teaching, based on reflective views of postgraduate

students on their undergraduate career. While fieldwork certainly helped provide a clear

linkage to research in that context, the question remains as to the extent to which research-

based fieldwork has contributed to the intellectual development and depth of learning

(Fuller et al., 2010). Harris and Tweed (2010) suggest that field-centred, inquiry-/research-

based learning is an effective means of facilitating both teaching and research, and their

study showed that students valued the experience of engaging in the research process,

which seemed to add depth to their learning. However, the findings of Harris and Tweed

(2010) were based on one small cohort of students in an experimental context. More

Journal of Geography in Higher Education 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

recently, Nicholson (2011) presented another case study embedding research in a field-

based module simulating the research life cycle from project design to write-up and

review, which students valued, but again findings were limited to a single, small cohort.

There has, therefore, been increasing focus on the teaching–research nexus in the

context of fieldwork, but primarily in conjunction with relatively small and single cohorts.

Furthermore, most of the emphasis has been on a research-based approach, i.e. inquiry-

based learning, with little to date on the synergies of an overtly research-based approach to

field teaching directly connected with staff research. In research-based fieldwork (e.g.

Harris & Tweed, 2010; Nicholson, 2011; Spronken-Smith & Hilton, 2009), students

engage with the research process via inquiry-based learning, but linkages with staff

research projects are not necessarily explicit.

Aim

This paper seeks to address the extent to which learning is reinforced by engaging students in

fieldwork conducted at sites where staff have recently completed and/or are active in ongoing

research andwhere students have the opportunity to actively participate in that research by, e.

g., data collection; in other words, where the link with existing and ongoing staff research

activity is meshed overtly with the students’ own research activity. The novelty of this

particular contribution lies in its drawing of information to address the issue from two quite

different contexts onopposite sides of the planet, aswell as the focus on the synergies afforded

by coupling research-based fieldwork with staff research. Furthermore, the strength of this

contribution lies in its assessment over 3 successive years, using a combination of six cohorts

ranging in size from 14 to 49 students, which enables us to draw conclusions that are less

limited by specific context or cohort. The key research questions we address are:

. What is the value of research-based fieldwork to student learning?

. What is the value of linking research-based student fieldwork with staff research?

. Does integrating research-based student fieldwork with staff research enhance the

teaching–research nexus and reinforce teaching and learning as a whole?

Methods

Fieldtrips and research design

Fieldwork was run in Spain by a UK Higher Education Institution (HEI) to cohorts of UK

students, and in New Zealand by a New Zealand HEI to cohorts of New Zealand students.

Fieldwork in Spain was compulsory for geography students, who were campus-based

only, and participated in the fieldtrip towards the end of their second year; while in New

Zealand, it was optional and offered to non-campus- as well as campus-based students,

which also meant some students were completing the course at the end of their third year

of study, while others were at the end of their second year. The cohort size in Spain was,

therefore, consistently much larger than the New Zealand cohort (Table 1). Each fieldtrip

was 7–8 days long. Within this timeframe, fieldwork in Spain was undertaken at multiple

locations, while in New Zealand a single location was used. Both fieldtrips involved

inquiry-/project-based work, field data collection and analysis, and as such were research-

based. Assessment in Spain comprised student presentations (two, equating to 50%) and a

field notebook (50%), while in New Zealand two presentations equated to 20%, with the

remaining 80% comprising two field-research reports. The nature of these fieldtrips is

therefore quite different, but the common theme is the role of research in each of them,

both in terms of what students were doing and in relation to staff research activity. Both


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

fieldtrips were run at sites where staff teaching the fieldtrip had recently conducted or were

actively conducting research, and the students’ own research was intentionally directly

connected with staff research at these sites. Students were made aware that their work was

taking place in staff research locations. The differences between New Zealand and UK

cohorts and fieldtrips provides a useful means of addressing the research questions from

two contrasting and diverse contexts, which removes problems of the cohort-effect, and

which often limits the extent to which findings can be construed to apply more broadly.

In New Zealand, students worked on projects collecting ablation and velocity data

from a glacier and also measured a variety of parameters in a proglacial stream. This

involved active “problem-based” fieldwork to collect data using a variety of equipment

and approaches to answer the question, “How dynamic is the glacier/river?” The project

design was provided, set up to compare the dynamics of these systems with those

published elsewhere, with due recognition of the limitations imposed by an 8-day visit.

Data processing, analysis and interpretation were the responsibility of the students.

Data from past iterations of this fieldwork had been used in publications arising from this

site (e.g. Purdie, Brook, & Fuller, 2008) and students understood that measurements they

were involved in taking were contributing in some way to staff research on site, as well as

undertaking their own research for their projects.

In Spain, students worked on small group projects in two distinct field areas. First, in

the Alpujarras Mountains, projects were focused on land cover and soil quality changes

following abandonment of agricultural terraces as a result of rural depopulation. Second,

in the El Chorro area, projects were based on more traditional Physical Geography topics

including tafoni landform evolution, geomorphological mapping of an ephemeral stream

valley and spatial patterns of microclimatic variation across different land cover and slope

characteristics. Students designed their own projects through formulation of research

questions to data collection, with staff supervision, and subsequently reported back to the

rest of the cohort via assessed presentations. As with the New Zealand example, data from

past iterations of this fieldwork had been used in publications arising from these sites (e.g.

Mellor, Short, & Kirkby, 1997).

In neither fieldtrip were students set up as research assistants for staff research. Their

fieldwork was very much their own research, but linkages with staff projects, past, present

and ongoing were made clear to them. That student research was being conducted at staff

research sites was not incidental and the genuine prospect of their data contributing to

staff research was made clear. How students perceived this and whether this enhanced

their learning experience was established by engaging students in questionnaire analysis,

described below. In particular, this allows us to address the question relating to the value of

linking students’ research-based fieldwork with staff research. In addition, because

Table 1. Gender and age representation of student cohorts and proportion of students participatingin questionnaire surveys.

Year FieldtripCohort size

(% participating) Male Female Age .40 Age 30–40 Age ,30

2010 New Zealand 14 (93) 8 6 2 1 11Spain 48 (96) 31 17 0 0 48




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

students are conducting research themselves, we can identify the perceived value of this

activity to student learning across six cohorts of students, spanning 3 years and two higher

education systems. The extent to which this develops the teaching–research nexus, and

reinforces teaching and learning, can also be assessed on the basis of the evidence acquired

in this study via questionnaire analysis.

Evaluation

In 2010, 2011 and 2012, student cohorts taking field-based courses (units/modules/papers)

at approximately the same stage in their academic study (end of the second year)

voluntarily completed questionnaires comprising closed and open questions seeking their

perception of both contributing to staff research projects as well as completing a research-

led project as part of their fieldwork. The questions posed are given in Table 2 and

summarized in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

Question 1 relates explicitly to the role that undertaking overt research-based

fieldwork has on student learning. Students were completing research projects and the

response options A–D seek to establish the extent to which this reinforces students’

understanding of the landscape, processes and environment. Response E relates to the role

of groupwork in the students’ research, since all data collection for research projects

involved working as a team. The positive or negative perception of doing research was

sought in response F, while responses G–J were posed to gauge opinion on the often

repetitive data-collection tasks involved in Physical Geography fieldwork and whether

students could perceive value in their activity. Responses L–O attempt to set research-

based fieldwork in a broader pedagogic context.

Question 2 relates more broadly to the students’ perception of the nature of this type of

fieldwork as a whole (rather than the explicit completion of a project). Response A was

intended to establish whether the fieldwork was perceived to link to the “real world”,

followed by responses B–C to establish the level of interest it did or did not maintain.

Response D tackles the issue of whether this research-based fieldwork developed skills of

broader use in the students’ degree. It was anticipated that UK students might better see

these connections than those in New Zealand, because the timing of the Spanish fieldtrip

was deliberately intended as a precursor to Honours dissertation work, which does not

form part of the New Zealand undergraduate Geography degree. The student perception of

the focus of research-based fieldwork was assessed in responses E–G. Responses H–J

seek to establish the perceived value of research-based fieldwork, as well as seeking

student perception of the teaching–research nexus in the context of their fieldwork.

Question 3 focuses on the value of linking research-based student fieldwork with staff

research. Responses A–B relate to perceived meaning and significance of the students’

work in light of its potential contribution to staff research. Responses C–D relate this

linkage to the teaching–research nexus. Recognizing that engaging in work contributing

to staff research might place students outside of their comfort zone and experience to date,

responses E–K were posed.

To ensure a consistency of approach, exactly the same questionnaires were used for

each cohort in each year and every cohort was informed that participation was entirely

voluntary. Questionnaires were distributed at the end of each fieldtrip. Response rates,

together with the gender and age distribution of each cohort are given in Table 1. The

questionnaires used a five-point Likert scale as a means to effectively capture student

perceptions in connection with each question posed. This provides a consistency of data

capture over 3 years’ and two institutions’ cohorts. Furthermore, this approach is simple to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

administer and provides a means of acquiring rapid feedback from students, and as such

our intention was to capture as wide a student voice as possible without the need to rely on

the commitment of students to attend, e.g., focus groups, which may have proved difficult

to sustain with consistency across cohorts and years. The questionnaire design did

nevertheless allow students to provide personal commentary on their perceptions and

answers in connection with the closed questions. In addition, students were asked in the

questionnaire to reflect on their top five most strongly held/significant answers to the

questions in an attempt to provide some level of ranking and insight into the way they

answered the questions. However, this section of many questionnaires was left blank or

Table 2. Questions posed for which a five-point Lickert scale response (strongly agree to disagree)was used.

Question 1: Completing a research project for this fieldwork . . .A . . . Helped me understand the methods we employed in the fieldB . . . Helped me understand the landforms and processes we studied in the fieldC . . . Provided me with deeper insight into the landforms and processes we studiedD . . . Helped me become familiar with the environment we were working inE . . . Helped me work together with my groupF . . . Is something I want to do more oftenG . . . Was very time consumingH . . . Was technically challengingI . . . Was enjoyableJ . . . Was a waste of timeK . . . Hindered my studyL . . . Stimulated my interest in the subject(s)M . . . Prompts me to consider pursuing the subject(s) furtherN . . . Provides me with an opportunity to produce a valuable piece of work via new data

generationO . . . Adds value to my study for a degree

Question 2: This fieldwork . . .A . . . Provided a real-world context for my studyB . . . Was very stimulatingC . . . Was boringD . . . Developed skills which will be of use in further studyE . . . Was too narrow/focusedF . . . Was too broad/unfocusedG . . . Provided a clear focus on the topics being studiedH . . . Helped me to see the value of researchI . . . Helped me see my lecturers as researchersJ . . . Demonstrated a clear connection between teaching and research

Question 3: Contributing to staff research projects . . .A . . . Made the fieldwork more meaningfulB . . . Helped me to see the significance of the work I was doingC . . . Helped me see my lecturers as researchersD . . . Demonstrated a clear connection between teaching and researchE . . . Was worryingF . . . Was dauntingG . . . Was rewardingH . . . Was a liberty taken by staffI . . . Was unwelcomeJ . . . Is something I want to be involved with more oftenK . . . Is something I don’t want to be involved with given the choice

Note: An open question, “Please feel free to add further comment or explanation to any of your answers in thespace below and/or on the reverse of this sheet” allowed further comment on each question.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

answered in a way which spoke of general fieldtrip experiences and as such, for the sake of

consistency, this component of the questionnaire was not used in this analysis.

Results

Figures 1–3 each draw together 3 years of student responses for (a) New Zealand and (b)

UK students. In combining the 3 years, we endeavour to remove subtle changes which

might reflect discrete year-to-year cohort variability. The results indicated no significant

year-to-year differences in responses (Appendix). Given that some difference between

New Zealand and UK cohorts might be expected, since they represent different Higher

Education systems and degree structure, these responses are presented separately.

The value of undertaking research-based fieldwork: research project specifics(question 1)

Figure 1 shows that undertaking research project work on these fieldtrips is perceived to

help with an understanding of methods, landforms, processes and the environment, with

over 90% of responses over 3 years in both New Zealand and UK cohorts agreeing with

these statements. This perception is held slightly more strongly among New Zealand

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Responses to question 1: (a) New Zealand and (b) Spain – “Completing a researchproject for this fieldwork . . . ”. Full responses are in Table 2.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

students with a very small minority of UK students in disagreement. Conducting a research

project in a group perhaps unsurprisingly assisted group cooperation, but group dynamics

may at times hinder this, which might explain a minority of UK students disagreeing with

this statement. Over 75% of New Zealand students and 80% of UK students wanted to

complete a research project using fieldwork more often, with most agreeing that doing so

was time consuming (a view perhaps held more strongly by New Zealand students),

although c.10% of both New Zealand and UK cohorts disagreed with this. Around 50% of

both cohorts agreed that the research they conducted for their project was technically

challenging, but around 90% agreed that it was enjoyable. Similarly, over 90% disagreed

that completing a research project was a waste of time, while a slightly smaller proportion

disagreed that completing a project hindered their study; here more UK students believed it

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Responses to question 2: (a) New Zealand and (b) Spain – “This fieldwork . . . ”. Fullresponses are in Table 2.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

hindered their study. The research project was perceived to be a stimulating exercise,

particularlybyNewZealand students (.90%)andonly slightly less sobyUKstudents (82%).

Themotivation provided by research project work for NewZealand students to pursue further

study was high (89% agreed), notably more so than for the UK cohort (61% agreed). Similar

proportions believed their workwas valuable, but a larger percentage of both cohorts believed

that completing a research project for this fieldwork added value to their degree.

The value of undertaking research-based fieldwork: holistic fieldwork experience(question 2)

Figure 2 shows that research-based fieldwork as a whole is perceived to provide a very

clear real world context for students: all New Zealand students over 3 years agreed with

this as did over 90% of the UK students. Over 90% of the New Zealand cohort and 81% of

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Responses to question 3: (a) New Zealand and (b) Spain – “Contributing to staff researchprojects . . . ”. Full responses are in Table 2.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

the UK cohort agreed that this fieldwork was stimulating and accordingly, and

consistently, disagreed that it was boring. Both cohorts also agreed that skills of further use

in the degree were developed by this research-based fieldwork: slightly more of the New

Zealand cohort agreed (93%) than the UK cohort (88%). Most students in both cohorts

disagreed that the fieldwork was too narrow or broad and they perceived a clear topic focus

in their fieldwork. Research-based fieldwork provides over 90% of New Zealand and UK

students with a clear concept of the value of research. Almost all New Zealand students

recognize their lecturers as researchers, a view held by a smaller (but still sizeable)

proportion of the UK cohort (81%). A large majority (c.90%) of students from both

cohorts agreed that their research-based fieldwork demonstrated a clear connection

between teaching and research.

The value of linking research-based fieldwork with staff research (question 3)

In Figure 3, linking students’ research-based fieldwork with staff research is perceived to

make the fieldwork more meaningful by 75% of both New Zealand and UK cohorts, with a

very small minority disagreeing with this and around 20% ambivalent. Similar proportions

of the UK students also agree that connecting with staff research made their work more

significant and helped them identify their lecturers as researchers; while higher

proportions of the New Zealand cohort agreed with this (85% and 95% respectively).

A similarly high proportion of New Zealand students agreed that linking with staff

research emphasized the connection between teaching and research, which was perceived

by 81% of the UK cohort. Very few New Zealand students were worried or daunted at the

prospect of contributing to staff research, but the proportion of UK students was higher (28%

and 12% were respectively worried and daunted). In spite of this, a consistent 70% of both

cohorts found this experience rewarding. Around 10% of each cohort believed connecting

with staff researchwas a liberty takenby staff, but very few (noNewZealanders and4%ofUK

students) found it unwelcome. Around 70% of the New Zealand cohort and 65% of the UK

cohort wanted to connect with staff research more often, and very few (again no New

Zealanders and less than 10% of UK students) agreed that connecting with staff research is

something they would never want to be involved with again.

Discussion

Figures 1–3 provide a robust assessment of student perceptions of research in fieldwork,

based on 3 years of data and across two contrasting fieldtrips from two different HEIs from

contrasting higher education systems. The student perceptions indicated in these responses

are remarkably largely consistent between the UK and New Zealand cohorts, in spite of

their contrasting contexts. Student perceptions are on the whole positively inclined to both

undertaking research as part of fieldwork and contributing to staff research projects. Here,

we discuss answers to the research questions posed under the aims above, based on the

data presented.

What is the value of research-based fieldwork to student learning?

Research-based fieldwork is perceived strongly by students to improve and develop their

understanding of methods, landforms, processes and the environment (Figure 1).

Conducting field research, students are actively involved in investigation and as such are

active, rather than passive learners. This provides them with hands-on experience


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

of appropriate field techniques and methods, which are applied directly in the study of

landforms, processes and environment, which they perceive to understand better as a result

of this active, research-based engagement. Responses to an open-ended option to comment

under question 1 included:

Learnt a lot. (New Zealand 2010)

I enjoyed the fieldwork, it gave much greater understanding of lectures taught and new topics.(UK 2010)

This is consistent with findings elsewhere (e.g. Fuller, Rawlinson, & Bevan 2000,

Fuller, Edmondson, France, Higgitt, & Ratinen, 2006; Scheyvens, Griffin, Jocoy, Liu, &

Bradford, 2008; Spronken-Smith & Kingham, 2009) and such a mode of learning builds

critical thinking, problem solving and social skills (Hanson & Moser, 2003); the latter

were also developed via research project work in both New Zealand and UK cohorts who

believed completing a research project helped foster group cooperation and collaboration.

Students involved in research-based fieldwork clearly enjoyed their experience, which

reinforces, at least in their own mind, that their learning has been effective (cf. Blunsdon,

Reed, McNeil, & McEarchern, 2003). Furthermore, given this positive perception,

students are clearly stimulated to study further and wish to repeat this type of learning in

the future. Interestingly, despite the repetitiveness of some research tasks, students were

stimulated and not at all bored by engaging in research in the field (Figure 2). Conducting

research-based fieldwork is clearly not dull, or unfocused, or for that matter too narrowly

focused on a particular research question and the value in conducting research is clearly

perceived by a large majority of students across institutions and years (Figure 2). These

data provide compelling evidence that research-based learning contributes positively to

the learning experience in Physical Geography.

It was anticipated that responses to question 2 (D) might have resulted in some

difference between the UK and New Zealand cohorts, because fieldwork among the UK

cohort in Spain was particularly aimed at providing students with research experience

prior to their compulsory Honours dissertation, whereas in New Zealand the research

project did not lead on or connect to further study. Several UK students commented on the

value of such experience in this specific context, for example:

Made me realize how thorough I will need to be when doing my own research. (UK 2012)

Important to have experience of own project design. (UK 2012)

While the New Zealand fieldwork was designed as a stand-alone entity without formal

follow-up, nevertheless, comments from New Zealand students also expressed a desire to

do further research-based work based on their experience:

Keen to do more research based data collection. (New Zealand 2012)

The use of this particular field course as a recruitment for further study in the

New Zealand Honours system (where Honours is a fourth year “postgraduate” degree) has

been discussed elsewhere (Fuller et al., 2010). Evidently research-based fieldwork is

highly valued by the great majority of students participating in this study, who perceive

that their learning has certainly been reinforced by completing a research project as part of

this fieldwork. The most significant negative comment made in connection with this

fieldwork was from the UK students, a number of whom believed that this fieldwork

hindered their study. Light is shed on this perspective in the following comment under the

open ended option for question 2:

too close to exams . . . hindered my study. (UK 2011)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

In this specific cohort (2011), c.30% of students agreed that the fieldwork as a whole

hindered their study (cf. Appendix). This was a result of the late scheduling of the fieldtrip

immediately prior to the exams period on this occasion. Engaging in research per se does

not therefore appear to be a hindrance, but the timing of such fieldwork does need to take

account of timing within the overall curriculum and academic year. There were no such

issues for New Zealand students, whose fieldwork was scheduled in the summer semester,

rather than at the end of a traditional academic year.

What is the value of linking research-based student fieldwork with staff research?

Integrating research-based fieldwork with staff research was perceived to reinforce

learning by both UK and New Zealand cohorts, whose responses to open-ended questions

asking for additional comments included reference to the credibility and relevance of the

work they were undertaking, which reinforces the results displayed in Figure 3:

Gave me a sense that we are able to collect data that are useful and relevant. (New Zealand2010)

I feel the work is credible. (UK 2011)

It is important to emphasize the value and use of repetitive data collection in the field.

Invariably, we are met with derogatory comments about “stone counting”, but there is

value and worth in these data and the process of their collection, which students can

perceive and recognize when they realize that what they are doing has relevance in

contributing to broader staff research in particular. Importantly, Figure 3 suggests this

gives greater meaning to their work, which in turn reinforces their learning and is likely

to add depth to the learning process, since a deep approach to learning has been related

to a seeking of meaning, motivated by interest and ability to collaborate and discuss

(cf. Maguire, Evans, & Dyas, 2001).

However, while some students highlighted the relevance and credibility of engaging in

research-based fieldwork, others lacked some confidence in their data quality:

I think the data gathered may not be of sufficient quality for a meaningful study, yet promptsinterest in pursuing the subject further. (New Zealand 2011)

Despite this student’s reservations about data quality generated by the student cohort,

the process has nevertheless engaged this individual, whose interest in the topic has been

sparked. This demonstrates an important part of the research process too, since an

awareness of data limitations is critical to data interpretation and understanding of the

conclusions that may or may not be justified from the data-set.

However, there is a small minority of students for whom engagement with staff

research was not welcome/perceived as a liberty taken by staff and who would not want to

be involved in such activity in the future (Figure 3). Interestingly, Breen and Lindsay

(1999) suggest that research was more likely to be valued by more intrinsically motivated

students, while those who were extrinsically motivated perceived research activity as

intrusive and a distraction. It might be argued that the New Zealand cohort would be more

likely to be intrinsically motivated than the UK cohort, for whom the fieldwork was

compulsory. However, the responses between the institutions appears to be consistent

(Figure 3), although a small proportion of UK students do agree with question 3J (cf.

Table 2) and would not want to be involved in future staff research given the option, while

no New Zealand students agree with this statement.

Since teaching ought to be done by those actively advancing knowledge (New Zealand

Education Amendment Act, 1990), it was good to promote student reflection on the notion


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

that their lecturers are themselves active researchers. Figure 3 suggests that this is a clear

perception by both the New Zealand cohort (where it is mandated) and the UK cohort

(where it is desirable).

We thought that some students may be fazed at the prospect of contributing data and

information towards staff research projects in the field, but students were not at all

worried, although some were a little daunted (Figure 3), but most would happily be

engaged at this level if afforded the opportunity in future.

Does integrating research-based student fieldwork with staff research enhance theteaching–research nexus and reinforce teaching and learning as a whole?

We believe that involving students in research activities of various kinds and at various

levels does reinforce teaching and learning in the Physical Geography fieldwork reported in

this paper, and serves to embed research culture and activity more deeply in the

undergraduate degree curriculum, enhancing the teaching–research nexus. As such, we

believe this paper makes a positive contribution to the discussion on the role and value of

linking teaching and research. It is clear that fieldwork that is both research-based and

connected with staff research appears to contribute positively to the student learning

environment and experience. This is in accordwith the findings of previouswork discussing

the teaching–research nexus in the context of fieldwork (e.g. Fuller et al., 2010; Harris &

Tweed, 2010; Hill et al., 2004; Spronken-Smith & Hilton, 2009). However, while previous

work has focused more specifically on research-based fieldwork, in this context, the

synergies with the lecturers’ research are shown to work well and there is a positive

reinforcement, or spiral of learning as these facets work together, because connecting with

staff research made the students’ fieldwork more meaningful and significant (Figure 3). As

both Hill et al. (2004) and Harris and Tweed (2010) point out, there is potential for deep and

reflective learning where research is incorporated into teaching, and while the depth of

learning that is actually achieved is difficult to quantify, the nature of student responses

suggests that engaging students in staff research work certainly prompts reflection on the

quality and consistency of their own work: the “is it good enough?” type of response

suggests active reflection is taking place, which is surely a component of a deep approach to

learning. Accordingly, we believe the active involvement and immersing of students in the

research process in the fullest sense, in which they are not only involved in their own

research project, but also contributing to and building on staff research, will have

maximized the benefit gained by students (Healey, 2005), since this maximizes the

synergies between research and teaching in a coordinated and targeted way (LeHeron et al.,

2006). It is also apparent from student perceptions presented that most students have valued

learning in a research-based situation, in which they contribute to staff research (cf. Jenkins

et al., 2007). Significantly, the findings that to date have been reported on the basis of

relatively small and often single cohorts (e.g. Harris & Tweed, 2010; Nicholson, 2011) are

reaffirmed in this broader study, which has both latitudinal (across institutions) and

longitudinal (over time) breadth. The pedagogic value of embedding research in

undergraduate teaching using fieldwork is now, we believe, incontrovertible, and

developing synergies between research-based fieldwork and staff research provides a

powerful learning experience.

Conclusions

Over 3 consecutive years, student cohorts from two contrasting higher education systems

perceive that research-based fieldwork, which entails completion of a research project,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

enhances their understanding of landforms, process, environment and methods deployed

in the study of these features. This is a style of learning these cohorts consistently enjoy

and find stimulating. Through engaging in the research process, they come to appreciate

the value of research. Linking research-based fieldwork with staff research has enhanced

the sense of meaning, relevance and significance of these students’ fieldwork, as well as

having encouraged critical reflection on data generation processes. Engaging students in

fieldwork that contributes data to staff research projects therefore provides a valuable and

deep level of learning experience. Furthermore, this engagement enhances the teaching–

research nexus by facilitating research-based, teaching and learning.

This paper demonstrates that diverse field teaching approaches, run in contrasting

environments and from contrasting HEI cultures, can successfully develop and deploy

high levels of engagement in the research process, providing a strong teaching–research

nexus in this context. Where appropriate, students need to be informed of their role in staff

research and given assurance of their capability to contribute to that research, to allay any

concerns or misgivings about their ability, but a critical approach to data generation is

valuable. We agree with Edwards’ (2003) assertion that research and teaching may be

successfully linked using fieldwork and suggest that fieldwork can and should provide a

key node in the teaching–research nexus, especially where the activities undertaken

contribute to on-going staff research projects and interests, which further serves to

reinforce teaching and learning.

Acknowledgements

Three cohorts of students taking these fieldwork courses between 2010 and 2012 are thanked forcontributing their views, which form the basis for this paper. Colleagues at our respective institutionsinvolved in design and delivery of these field courses are also gratefully acknowledged. We wouldalso like to thank Helen Walkington and four anonymous reviewers whose helpful and constructivecomments substantially improved an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Blunsdon, B., Reed, K., McNeil, N., & McEarchern, S. (2003). Experiential learning in socialscience theory: An investigation of the relationship between student enjoyment and learning.Higher Education Research & Development, 22, 43–56.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, GA:Princeton University Press.

Breen, R., & Lindsay, R. (1999). Academic research and student motivation. Studies in HigherEducation, 24, 75–93.

Brew, A., & Boud, D. (1995). Teaching and research: Establishing the vital link with learning.Higher Education, 29, 261–273.

Edwards, S. (2003). Examples of integrating field-based research and teaching in geography, earthand environmental sciences. Planet, 11, 19–21.

Fuller, I. C., Brook, M. S., & Holt, K. A. (2010). Linking teaching and research in undergraduatePhysical Geography papers: The role of fieldwork. New Zealand Geographer, 66, 196–202.

Fuller, I. C., Edmondson, S., France, D., Higgitt, D., & Ratinen, I. (2006). International perspectiveson the effectiveness of geography fieldwork for learning. Journal of Geography in HigherEducation, 30, 89–101.

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

Fuller, I. C., Rawlinson, S. L., & Bevan, J. R. (2000). Evaluation of student learning experiences inphysical geography fieldwork: Paddling or pedagogy? Journal of Geography in HigherEducation, 24, 199–215.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus: The case of the builtenvironment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 709–726.

Hanson, S., & Moser, S. (2003). Reflections on a discipline-wide project: Developing active learningmodules on the human dimensions of global change. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,27, 17–38.

Harris, T., & Tweed, F. (2010). A research-led, inquiry-based learning experiment: Classiclandforms of deglaciation, Glen Etive, Scottish Highlands. Journal of Geography in HigherEducation, 34, 511–528.

Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research, 66, 507–542.

Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). One journey to unravel the relationship between research andteaching. Paper presented at Research and Teaching: Closing the Divide? An InternationalColloquium, Winchester, March 2004. Retrieved from http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/staff/j.hattie/hattie-papers-download/research-and-teaching.html

Hill, J., & Woodland, W. (2002). An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promoting deep learning:A preliminary investigation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 539–555.

Hill, J., Woodland, W., & Spalding, R. (2004). Linking teaching and research in an undergraduatecurriculum. Planet, 13, 4–7.

Healey, M. (2005). Linking teaching and research to benefit student learning. Journal of Geographyin Higher Education, 29, 183–201.

Healey, M., Jordan, F., Pell, B., & Short, C. (2010). The research–teaching nexus: A case study ofstudents’ awareness, experiences and perceptions of research. Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 47, 235–246.

James, P., Heinson, G., & Schmidt-Mumm, A. (2003). Linking teaching and research in theundergraduate fieldwork training programme at the University of Adelaide. Planet, 11, 16–18.

Jenkins, A. (2000). The relationship between teaching and research: Where does geography standand deliver? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24, 325–351.

Jenkins, A. (2003). Designing a curriculum that values a research-based approach to student learningin Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES). Planet, 11, 2–5.

Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R., & Brew, A. (2003). Re-shaping higher education: Linkingteaching and research. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Jenkins, A., Healey, M., & Zetter, R. (2007). Linking teaching and research in disciplines anddepartments. York: The Higher Education Academy.

Keene, P. (1991). Communicating geography: Trailing clouds of glory. The New Academic, 1,14–15.

Kenny, S. S., Thomas, E., Katkin, W., Lemming, M., Smith, P., Glaser, M., & Gross, W. (2001).Reinventing undergraduate education: Three years after the Boyer report. Retrieved fromhttps://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/handle/1951/26013

LeHeron, R., Baker, R., & McEwen, L. (2006). Co-learning: Re-linking research and teaching ingeography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30, 77–87.

Lonergan, N., & Andresen, L. W. (1988). Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations.Higher Education Research and Development, 7, 63–77.

Maguire, S., Evans, S. E., & Dyas, L. (2001). Approaches to learning: A study of first year geographyundergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25, 95–107.

Melese, W. (2012). Research–teaching link in higher education institutions of Ethiopia: The case ofJimma University. Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review, 1, 85–98.

Mellor, A., Short, J., & Kirkby, S. J. (1997). Tafoni in the El Chorro area, Andalucia, southern Spain.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 22, 817–833.

Neumann, R. (1994). The teaching-research nexus: Applying a framework to university students’learning experiences. European Journal of Education, 29, 323–339.

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2002). Tertiary Education Strategy 2002/07, Wellington:Ministry of Education.

Nicholson, D. T. (2011). Embedding research in a field-based module through peer review andassessment for learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35, 529–549.

Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduateteaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering Education, 96,283–294.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/staff/j.hattie/hattie-papers-download/research-and-teaching.html

http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/staff/j.hattie/hattie-papers-download/research-and-teaching.html

http://https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/handle/1951/26013

Purdie, H., Brook, M. S., & Fuller, I. C. (2008). Seasonal variation in ablation and surface velocity ona temperate maritime glacier: Fox Glacier, New Zealand. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research,40, 140–147.

Quality Assurance Agency. (2007). Benchmark statement for geography. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/geography.pdf

Robertson, J., & Blackler, G. (2006). Students’ experiences of learning in a research environment.Higher Education Research and Development, 25, 215–229.

Scheyvens, R., Griffin, A. L., Jocoy, C. L., Liu, Y., & Bradford, M. (2008). Experimenting withactive learning in geography: Dispelling the myths that perpetuate resistance. Journal ofGeography in Higher Education, 32, 51–69.

Scott, I., Fuller, I. C., & Gaskin, S. (2006). Life without fieldwork: Some lecturers’ perceptions ofgeography and environmental science fieldwork. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,30, 161–171.

Spronken-Smith, R., & Hilton, M. (2009). Recapturing quality field experiences and strengtheningteaching-research links. New Zealand Geographer, 65, 139–146.

Spronken-Smith, R., & Kingham, S. (2009). Strengthening teaching and research links: The case of apollution exposure inquiry project. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 241–253.

Spronken-Smith, R., Mirosa, R., & Darrou, M. (2013). ‘Learning is an endless journey for anyone’:Undergraduate awareness, experiences and perceptions of the research culture in a research-intensive university. Higher Education Research and Development. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.832169

Zamorski, B. (2000). Research-led teaching and learning in higher education. Norwich: Centre forApplied Research in Education.

Zubrick, A., Reid, U., & Rossiter, P. (2001). Strengthening the nexus between teaching and research.Canberra: Department of Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/geography.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/geography.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.832169



Appendix: Individual cohort questionnaire responses

.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mas

sey

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

9:53

12

Aug

ust 2

014