Field work is an integral component of undergraduate geoscience education. Field areas for these crucial experiences are carefully selected, but how do these places affect our students? This study compares the field experience of students participating in two distinct modules of a study abroad field camp in New Zealand, through sense of place and perceptions of learning. The situated module was geological mapping based in a single site, whereas the roadside module was based on smaller exercises in multiple discrete sites. Survey findings indicate that students became significantly more attached to the situated field area, but had no significant change in their attachment to the roadside field area. Field observations and interview findings suggest that this may be due to student autonomy, the immersive landscape, and strong alignment of student perceptions of learning with instructor intentions on the situated field module. In contrast, the roadside module was more determined by the instructor, and student perceptions of learning did not align well with instructor intent in conveying a sense of the regional geologic history. We assimilate our field observations and student and instructor interview data into a schematic model of the two field trip styles. This model is then used to visualize an improved pedagogy to foster greater engagement with the landscape and geology in the roadside trip. We recommend that roadside field trips have explicit assessments that connect the field sites together. Our interview data suggest that this connection would be further enhanced with greater opportunities for student ownership of in-field decision making through student-centered learning, encouragement of a sense of exploration, and development of a student and instructor field learning community.
This study compares the field experience and development of sense of place (in this case, human attributed meanings and attachments to the field area) in geoscience students on three separate course sections of a six-day introductory geological mapping field trip. Students stayed in a small farm station within their 4 km2 field area, worked in groups of three or four, and produced an individual final assessment. Findings from student interviews and pre-post surveys indicated that there were no significant differences in perceptions of the field trip purpose or sense of place between field trip sections, despite differences in instructor pedagogy and sense of place, as well as varied weather conditions. There were significant increases in student sense of place on all field trips, in contrast with previous work on a "roadside" (regional, multi-site) field trip where no significant change in sense of place occurred. In-field observations and instructor interviews identified key characteristics that supported similar sense of place and experiences on all trips: (1) consistent intended learning outcomes, (2) a carefully selected and immersive field area valued by instructors, and (3) an assessment connected to the landscape/field area with flexibility in its implementation, especially when faced with adverse weather conditions.