Geography | Higher education » Welsh-France - The Future of Higher Education Fieldwork in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences

Source: http://www.doksinet The Future of Higher Education Fieldwork in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Katharine E. Welsh and Derek France, University of Chester July 2012 Source: http://www.doksinet Contents 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Increased Higher Education Tuition Fees 3 1.2 Purpose of the Report 3 2. Importance of Fieldwork 3 3. Methodology 3 3.1 Introduction 3 3.2 Respondent Profiles 4 4. Results and discussion 4 4.1 Provision of fieldwork over the last 5 years 4 4.11 Decrease in fieldwork provision

4 4.12 Unchanged fieldwork provision 5 4.2 Non-residential fieldwork 5 4.3 Compulsory Residential Fieldwork 6 4.31 Earth Science Programmes 6 4.32 Environmental Science Programmes 7 4.33 Geography Programme 8 4.4 Optional Residential Fieldwork 8 4.5 Long Term Future Trends 10 5. Conclusions 11 6. Recommendations 11 7. Acknowledgements 12 8. Appendices 13 9. References

15 Source: http://www.doksinet 1. Introduction 1.1 Increased Higher Education Tuition Fees Higher Education tuition fees in the United Kingdom (UK) are changing. In the academic year 2012/2013, the majority of Higher Education institutions (HEIs) will increase their undergraduate tuition fees for students from England to a maximum of £9000 per annum (Directgov, 2012). Fees for students from Northern Ireland are capped at £3,465, whilst the Welsh assembly will pay fees above £3,465 for Welsh students attending UK institutions. Students from Scotland attending Scottish universities will not pay fees, (Vasagar, 2012) These reforms to higher education funding were initially informed by the conclusions from the Browne Review (2010) and the subsequent government white paper on Higher Education, (BIS, 2011). Financial pressure in these already austere times is growing for students who wish to pursue undergraduate degrees. In

Geography, Earth, Environmental Sciences (GEES) and allied disciplines, students may also have to make a financial contribution to fieldwork activities on top of their tuition fees. 1.2 Purpose of the report This report outlines current undergraduate GEES fieldwork provision across an illustrative selection of HEIs in the UK (see Appendix I) in terms of location, duration and cost of fieldwork to the student. The report then explores how these factors may change over the short term (next 12 months) and over the longer term (3-5 years). 2. Importance of Fieldwork Fieldwork is an integral component to many undergraduate degree courses such as Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences and its importance and prominence is reflected by inclusion in the Quality Assurance Agency‟s revised subject benchmarking statements for GEES disciplines (QAA, 2007). A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of fieldwork (Kern & Carpenter, 1984; 1986, Fuller et al., 2006, Boyle et

al., 2007, Butler, 2008, Maskall & Stokes, 2008) and one of the strongest themes to emerge from the student perspective is “the hands-on experience of the real world that fieldwork provides across cultures and continents” (Fuller et al., 2006, p96) Boyle et al (2007) suggested that fieldwork “is being, or will be, reduced within universities in the UK” (p.300) and outlined key reasons for the decline such as financial pressures on field courses and growth in student numbers. However, recent bioscience discipline research by Maw et al. (2010) suggested, “fieldwork activities are still being undertaken and that the overall level of fieldwork has not decreased in the last 5 years” (p.5) This reported difference in fieldwork provision may be a function of different disciplines. Within the research presented here, fieldwork in the GEES disciplines will be further informed by this research, which draws upon evidence from a range of GEES practitioners in a time of increasing

student fees, where it is important to preserve fieldwork provision to enhance the student learning experience. 3. Methodology 3.1 Introduction Over sixty GEES practitioners from a range of departments were invited to participate in short semistructured telephone interviews to discuss fieldwork provision within their department. The practitioners were targeted specifically for their interest in fieldwork or for their capacity as fieldworkers. Twenty-seven practitioners from 24 institutions across UK Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences programmes responded and were interviewed via telephone. The questions were constructed so that comparisons could be easily made between institutions (Appendix 2) however, practitioner‟s responses were anonymised so that they were able to talk freely about any issues or aspects of fieldwork that they felt were important. 3 Source: http://www.doksinet 3.2 Respondent Profiles The practitioners represent an illustrative sample from both pre- and

post-1992 universities (Table1) with a 52% to 48% split from each sector. Some practitioners were able to talk about more than one programme in their department, so in total 32 GEES programmes were discussed (see Table 2). A full profile of the respondents is provided in Appendix 1; 77.8% of respondents were male compared to 222% female with the majority of respondents commenting on geography programmes. University Pre-1992 Post-1992 Number of Participants 14 13 Table 1. Summary of respondent’s institution Geography Earth Science Environmental Science Total Programmes Pre-1992 10 5 2 17 Post-1992 11 2 2 15 Table 2. Number of programmes discussed with participants across the GEES disciplines from pre- and post-1992 institutions. 4. Results and discussion 4.1 Provision of fieldwork over the last 5 years Practitioners were asked to evaluate if the amount of fieldwork had changed on their programmes over the last five years (Table 3). The pattern found in both pre-1992 and post-1992

universities are very similar and show that in 75% of the programmes, the amount of fieldwork has stayed the same. In 19% of the programmes, fieldwork has increased and in 6% of the programmes fieldwork has decreased. Increased Stayed the same Decreased Pre-1992 2 14 1 Post-1992 4 10 1 All Universities 6 24 2 Table 3. Fieldwork provision within GEES programmes over the last 5 years (2007-2012) 4.11 Decrease in fieldwork provision Of the 6% of programmes where fieldwork has decreased, practitioners cite the reasons behind the decrease as: modules becoming elective rather than compulsory, staff departures and an increase in student numbers. The two practitioners describe the reasons behind the decrease in fieldwork “due to the new elective modules and also due to staff departures, provision is down by 20%” (Respondent 2) and “level 6 and level 5 modules are now both optional. Additionally, compulsory fieldwork is just not practical for 60-70 students” (Respondent 4). Although

this represents only a small proportion of the number of programmes discussed, it provides some useful insight for reasons why the amount of fieldwork may decrease. Decreasing the amount of fieldwork due to increasing student numbers could be a trend that is replicated in other departments if numbers continue to rise as they have done over the last few years. Furthermore, staff departures and changes to staffing are common in academic departments so rather than this being a reason to decrease fieldwork, this should be opportunity to preserve fieldwork even if there is a change to the location or duration of the field course. 4 Source: http://www.doksinet 4.12 Unchanged fieldwork provision The majority (75%) of programmes discussed have had either no changes or minor changes to the fieldwork provision over the last five years and deemed that overall the amount had “typically stayed the same” (Respondent 3. Despite the amount of fieldwork remaining static, a number of operational

changes have been made within field courses. Typically, location and budgetary constraints were the drivers behind the alterations to the fieldwork provision. Respondent 8 states that “The amount of fieldwork has stayed the same but has been re-purposed to find more cost effective locations” which has in some cases meant that “residential fieldwork has been brought back to the UK to reduce costs on overseas fieldwork” (Respondent 10). In other cases has meant that “locations have changed to cut costs although the UK/abroad ratio remains the same” (Respondent 14). So although the quantity of fieldwork offered remains unchanged, the provision and opportunities to go abroad for residential fieldwork has decreased as field courses have become more UK based. For 23% of programmes “residential fieldwork has decreased slightly but day trips have increased so overall the amount of fieldwork undertaken by students is broadly the same” (Respondent 19). Whilst the students may

still have the same amount of days out in the field, there is potential for informal and social interactions between peers and lecturing staff to be lost, which is an important value added component of residential fieldwork. Overall, the data show encouraging trends across the UK in both pre-1992 and post-1992 universities with 94% of all the programmes discussed in this research with fieldwork provision either remaining the same (over the last five years) or being increased slightly. One of the more noticeable discussion points was that of the accreditation of Earth Science degree programmes by the Geological Society of London, which seems to have a large influence in maintaining the amount of fieldwork, as the Society stipulate that 60 days (The Geological Society, 2012) of fieldwork that must be conducted over the course of an undergraduate degree in order to be accredited. “The amount of fieldwork has stayed the same over five years, very much to ensure the accreditation of the

degrees by the Geology Society of London” (Respondent 6). Undergraduate degree accreditation as a mechanism to preserve fieldwork within allied degree programmes may be an area to explore for the remaining GEES disciplines i.e Geography and Environmental Science 4.2 Non-residential fieldwork Every programme discussed typically offered between one and three non-residential local (1-2 hour drive from institution) fieldwork days per year of the programme. In general each programme either offered the trips free as part of the module, asked students to make their own way there or asked them for a contribution towards the coach (typically around £5-10 per student per field day). The vast majority offered these trips completely free to the students and the field days are considered compulsory within a module but the module may be elective so any additional fieldwork charges are not always compulsory. Accredited Earth Science programmes had considerably more local fieldwork days per year

than the other GEES disciplines. There are no changes envisaged to the format of these local field days across any of the programmes discussed in the future other than the departments may change the location if module content changes. In terms of cost to the student, each programme will continue with their current strategy of payment i.e if the institutions currently offers free field days, they will continue to do this next year. One programme had no compulsory or optional residential fieldwork and ran only non-residential local field days. The respondent felt that they were “ideally placed in terms of field sites to go on field days” (Respondent 20). The programme discussed with respondent 25 offered around 25 field days over the course of three years which is slightly more than the programmes which offer both residential and non-residential fieldwork. The rationale behind the lack of residential fieldwork on offer was that the department “can‟t ask students to even pay £100

towards trips due to being in a less affluent area” (Respondent 20), so the compromise of more field days (paid for by the department) with no additional cost to the student is sustainable for both the students and 5 Source: http://www.doksinet the department. However, as aforementioned, (Section 412) the reduction of residential fieldwork may result in the loss of valuable social interaction between staff and students in informal settings. 4.3 Compulsory Residential Fieldwork Of the 32 programmes that were discussed with respondents (Table 4), 6 programmes currently offer free residential fieldwork if the fieldwork is deemed compulsory, 23 programmes currently charge students a fee (ranging from~20% contribution to full cost recovery) and 3 programmes do not offer compulsory residential fieldwork. Of the six programmes, which are currently free, all will remain free in the next academic year (2012/2013). Of the 23 programmes, which currently charge students for compulsory

residential fieldwork, 4 will keep the same charge, 7 will remove all of the charge, 11 will remove some of the charge, 1 remains unclear and none will increase the charge to students. Frequency 6 6 0 Percentage 19 100 0 (b) Currently Charge - Same Charge - Remove all charge - Remove some charge - Increased Charge - Unclear 23 4 7 11 0 1 72 17 30 48 0 4 (c) No Residential Fieldwork 3 9 (a) Currently Free - Remaining Free - Increased Charge Table 4. Current and future costs of residential fieldwork Overall, it is encouraging to see that even in light of increased tuition fees in the 2012/2013 academic year, across the 32 programmes, none of the fieldwork costs will be increased and indeed over 78% of the programmes which currently charge for fieldwork will reduce these costs to the student. In the academic year 2012/2013, 40% of these programmes will offer free compulsory residential fieldwork to their students; this is over double the number of programmes which offered free

compulsory fieldwork in 2011/2012. 4.31 Earth Science Programmes Of the Earth Science programmes, which currently charge for fieldwork, 33% will offer free fieldwork to their students and 67% will remove some of the costs to students (Table 5). Several of the programmes will reduce costs further by offering a free field kit to students when they begin their undergraduate degree programmes. The kit typically comprises of a “hard hat, high-visibility jacket, compass-clino etc. and usually costs about £50, we will offer this free to all new starters” (Respondent 6). Overall, across the Earth Science programmes discussed, students will pay less overall for their fieldwork in 2012/2013. This is particularly important for those programmes which are accredited due to the volume of fieldwork undertaken by students. Geology was deemed “probably the most field-intensive course available” (Respondent 6) with the compulsory 35 day mapping project alone costing up to “approximately £800

per student in some cases” (Respondent 17). Out of all of the GEES programmes discussed, it is likely that students undertaking accredited Earth Science degree programmes may find the new 2012/2013 fees structure most challenging due to the add-on costs of fieldwork and the number of field days they undertake as part of these accredited programmes. One Earth Science programme that currently charges students will offer free compulsory residential fieldwork in 2012/2013 and will make all compulsory residential fieldwork UK-based “for reasons of cost, issues with 6 Source: http://www.doksinet international student visas and reduced land access at international field sites” (Respondent 9). Whilst the opportunity for compulsory overseas fieldwork is lost, perhaps basing all compulsory fieldwork in the UK where possible is a viable possibility that would help to reduce add-on costs to Earth Science students. A number of the Earth Science programmes have secured a higher level of

subsidy from their Faculty or University but are “unsure about how sustainable this is in the future if student numbers increase” (Respondent 17). One respondent noted that “industrial partners who sponsor undergraduate field courses will become more important to preserve provision of fieldwork” (Respondent 6) and indeed external sponsorship could be one way that reduces fieldwork costs to GEES students and could be sustained for the future, particularly in Earth Science courses. EARTH SCIENCES (a) Currently Free - Remaining Free - Increased Charge Frequency 1 1 0 Percentage 14 100 0 (b) Currently Charge - Same Charge - Remove all charge - Remove some charge - Increased Charge - Unclear 6 0 2 4 0 0 86 0 33 67 0 0 (c) No Residential Fieldwork 0 0 Table 5. Current and future costs of residential fieldwork for Earth Science programmes 4.32 Environmental Science Programmes Of the three Environmental Science programmes which currently charge (2011/2012), none of the

programmes will be offering free compulsory residential fieldwork in 2012/2013 but all will be reducing the cost to the students in some way either by providing more subsidies from the university or by allowing students to “book their own travel to offer greater flexibility for students which they like” (Respondent 21). ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (a) Currently Free - Remaining Free - Increased Charge Frequency Percentage 1 1 0 25 100 0 (b) Currently Charge - Same Charge - Remove all charge - Remove some charge - Increased Charge - Unclear 3 0 0 3 0 0 75 0 0 100 0 0 (c) No Residential Fieldwork 0 0 Table 6. Current and future costs of residential fieldwork for Environmental Science programmes 7 Source: http://www.doksinet 4.33 Geography Programmes Out of the three GEES disciplines, the greatest level of change to fieldwork costs will be within Geography. Students following Geography programmes will benefit most from „free‟ compulsory fieldwork in the future as 36%

(Table 7) of programmes, which currently charge for fieldwork, will become free in the future and a further 28.5% of programmes will remove some of the charge One of the programmes, which will begin to offer free compulsory fieldwork to students in 2012/2013, will “increase the provision by adding two additional trips” (Respondent 14). One programme hopes to offer free UK based compulsory fieldwork but will charge for compulsory overseas fieldwork (Respondent 8). Another respondent felt it was important that students did contribute something to their field courses as “students take the course more seriously if they have paid for part of it” (Respondent 7). GEOGRAPHY (a) Currently Free - Remaining Free - Increased Charge Frequency 4 4 0 Percentage 19 100 0 (b) Currently Charge - Same Charge - Remove all charge - Remove some charge - Increased Charge - Unclear 14 4 5 4 0 1 67 28.5 36 28.5 0 7 (c) No Residential Fieldwork 3 14 Table 7. Current and future costs of

residential fieldwork for Geography programmes Whilst some of the charges for fieldwork on Geography programmes are being removed, provision will remain the same but in a number of programmes there will be modifications to the fieldwork such as: - “we may reduce the number of residential nights from two to one, but still spend 2 days in the field” (Respondent 8) - “international trips may be cut and brought back to the UK due to rising costs” (Respondent 10) - “pre-registration or induction courses may be completely free but longer trips will still require some contribution” (Respondent 16) - “overall it [fieldwork] hasn‟t reduced but it [fieldwork] has changed to find more cost effective locations” (Respondent 8) So overall, whilst provision will stay approximately the same and costs of compulsory fieldwork to the student will be reduced, this has the potential to ensure sustainability, even if the departments slightly alter their fieldwork portfolio. 4.4 Optional

Residential Fieldwork The current level of optional residential fieldwork within the GEES disciplines has provided many fantastic opportunities for undergraduate students to experience both UK based and international fieldwork. Across the 32 programmes discussed within this research, undergraduate students were offered a range of optional fieldwork across six of the seven continents (Antarctica excluded), with locations typically “dependent on staff research interests” (Respondent 21) for anything between 7 to 35 days. The optional residential fieldwork typically takes place during Level 5 and Level 6 and with the exception of one programme, which has recently 8 Source: http://www.doksinet made all fieldwork elective across all three levels, none of the other programmes report optional residential fieldwork in Level 4. In the majority of programmes, optional residential fieldwork is subsidised less than compulsory residential fieldwork and over half of the programmes ask

students to pay the whole cost of the optional fieldwork. Of all the fieldwork discussed (daytrips, compulsory residential, optional residential), optional residential fieldwork is likely to undergo the greatest change in 2012/2013 onwards in terms of format, location, opportunities and additional costs. In 2012/2013 and beyond, some programmes will reduce the level of subsidy offered to optional residential fieldwork so that funds can be reallocated to reduce additional costs of compulsory residential fieldwork. In particular there was a trend “to cut subsidies of long haul fieldwork” (Respondent 15). This raises two important issues about the reduction of subsidy for optional fieldwork; firstly, if subsidies are cut or reduced, will there still be enough student interest to run the field course so that it is financially viable? Secondly, will less affluent students be excluded from these opportunities based on cost alone? One of the respondents stated “over the long term we may

cut subsidies for year 3 trips and this may result in us not have enough student interest to run the trip. We would not like to run a two-tier programme with those who can afford to go and those who cannot, so we will have to question whether we should run the trip” (Respondent 14). One way in which a “two-tier” system might be avoided, or the field course cancelled entirely would be to offer a free UK-based or European option which some programmes plan to do. “We may give a small amount of funding which would make our UK optional trip free and then students would pay top-up costs if they wanted to go on one of the optional international trips” (Respondent 13). Less affluent students would still lose the opportunity to conduct international fieldwork but would at least have an opportunity to conduct some further UK-based fieldwork. It was rightly noted that “some trips can cost up to £2000 and may not survive” (Respondent 8) if departments reduce subsidies on optional

fieldwork. To further compound the issue, the cost of long-haul travel will continue to be a problem over the next few years “due to rising oil costs” (Respondent 4) with one respondent noting that “it may be the last time we run the [North American] fieldtrip due to increasing costs, it is £300 more expensive now than it was 18 months ago” (Respondent 10). Ultimately, the main concern is that student numbers will reduce if the optional fieldwork becomes too expensive, (whether through reductions in departmental subsidies or increasing travel costs) and the field course will cease to exist due to the lack of financial viability. However, other respondents said that they were “amazed at how much students are prepared to pay for fieldwork to long-haul field sites” (Respondent 3) and “only time will tell” (Respondent 14) what will happen in the future in terms of student numbers and financial viability of optional field courses. One suggestion to overcome reduction in

student numbers on optional field courses may be to “collaborate with other universities to create more joint fieldwork opportunities” (Respondent 21) but this could potentially risk losing a unique selling point of individual departments which is often a long-haul fieldtrip which gives identity to a programme and distinguishes it from other programmes. Whilst decreasing student numbers on optional fieldwork may be considered to be a potential issue over the longer term, there is the opposite issue of “increasing student numbers [which] put pressure on international trips as taking 30 plus students to [South America] is very difficult” (Respondent 13). A number of institutions have “had to run the fieldtrip to [North America] twice due to high student numbers” (Respondent 27). To resolve some of the pressure on optional international trips, staff members across some programmes are also being encouraged to take a “small number of students along on their own research

trips” (Respondent 21). One notable point to come out of the research into optional fieldwork is that there is very little, (if any), optional fieldwork in Earth Science degree programmes, particularly those which are accredited, which means students on these programmes have little alternative but to accept the additional costs of the fieldwork over 9 Source: http://www.doksinet the three year undergraduate degree programme on top of their tuition fees. Even with increased financial support from Earth Science departments, this research has shown that none of the programmes discussed will offer free fieldwork. The additional compulsory fieldwork costs have the potential to impact on future student numbers within Earth Science programmes in 2012/2013 and beyond. However, only time will tell whether these costs will have any influence on student numbers. 4.5 Long Term Future Trends Fieldwork is the type of activity that has always been under review by departments, with changing

staffing allocations, fieldwork location requirements and ever increasing associated fieldwork costs, but more recently a new constituent has emerged which is unknown and unclear, “how this new fee income will be received” (Respondent 14). One of the key themes to emerge about the long-term future was the uncertainty of funding to maintain the current fieldwork provision within programmes. For some it seems that there is still a “high level of uncertainty about budget and numbers and [We] may have to roll back fieldwork to fit the resources we have available” (Respondent 4). Overall, “student costs for fieldwork may reduce, but departments and universities which offer more subsidy will be worse off under the new fees structure” (Respondent 1). Many respondents were concerned about how sustainable their new models of fieldwork funding will be over the long term. The next academic year (2012/2013) was described as a “trial year” (Respondent 17) and departments will have

to “suck it and see [what will happen]” (Respondent 23). It was reassuring to hear every respondent comment upon how their department was determined to retain their fieldwork provision in these uncertain times. This can be best summarised by Respondent 16 who commented "we are fighting hard to maintain fieldwork,” even with larger student numbers putting pressure on resourcing fieldtrips, especially at level four, departments need to "retain what we do but do it more cost effectively" (Respondent 18). However, this has the potential to be compounded even further over the coming year by the new admissions policy to allow unrestrained recruitment to University of high achieving students who typically attain AAB grades, (BIS, 2011). A number of colleagues commented “AAB may have an impact on numbers this year [2012]” (Respondent 1) and “the University can get as many students as it wants through the AAB route” (Respondent 27). This could result in even larger

student numbers entering University placing even more pressure on fieldwork provision. There is consensus that staffing changes and research interests initially drive changes to fieldwork locations and provision, but ultimately one of the biggest factors that may influence future fieldwork is student choice in selecting elective modules that dictate whether optional field courses are viable, need to change or are cancelled altogether. Elective modules with optional fieldwork usually occur in Level 5 and 6 of programmes, where all or most of the fieldwork cost is passed on to the student. As a result, a number of these modules could come under threat, due in part to the reduced numbers of students electing to take these modules. Departments will need to respond to these pressures by providing a local fieldwork alternative, or initiating a “means tested student bursary system to support student engagement with fieldwork and therefore maintaining the viability of elective modules”

(Respondent 27). Furthermore, questions are beginning to emerge from University management teams about the carbon footprint of departmental fieldwork and the need to reduce their carbon emissions in line with university sustainability policies. The resulting response from departments has been to relocate fieldwork locations to “European destinations that can be accessed by coach or ferry, rather than fly” (Respondent 24).In many of the programmes, fieldwork continues to receive the “best feedback on module evaluations” (Respondent 13) and probably contributes to the higher than average National Student Survey overall satisfaction scores for GEES based disciplines (Hefce, 2011). However, Respondent 24 commented “other departments/schools within Universities have begun to realise that fieldwork is centrally subsidised and is an attractive part of an undergraduate programme”. The net result is “that other disciplines (Art, History etc) now realise the potential that

fieldwork offers and are beginning to seek additional funding from Universities” (Respondent 10 Source: http://www.doksinet 24) to fund their own field visits both in the UK and abroad, which may hinder future support and subsidy to GEES based disciplines. The future of fieldwork within the GEES disciplines will continue in much the same light as it has done over the last five years, except for the fact that students will contribute less funding to compulsory fieldwork and GEES departments will have to provide more with less and offer alternative local/regional/national fieldwork compared to the far travelled international fieldwork experiences. 5. Conclusions Overall, a number of interesting points were raised about fieldwork in general and how the increased tuition fees in England may impact on fieldwork provision. The main conclusions, which can be drawn from this research, can be divided into: Short-term:  Across all institutions fieldwork provision is broadly the same as

it has been over the last five years and although fieldwork may be modified, the amount of fieldwork conducted by students in the next academic year will be largely unchanged.  For the academic year 2012/2013, students will not have to pay any more than the current cohort for fieldwork and in the majority of institutions, additional fieldwork costs to the student will actually reduce overall.  Replacing residential fieldwork with day trips has the potential to lose the informal social interaction between staff and students, which provides a unique bond and identity associated with GEES based disciplines. Compulsory residential fieldwork will receive the most financial support in 2012/2013 whilst subsidies for optional residential fieldwork are likely to be reduced.  The academic year 2012/2013 will be a trial year for many institutions and over the long-term there are still high levels of uncertainty about the sustainability of current and proposed fieldwork provision,

location and cost to students and departments. Long-term:  Student numbers will play a large role in fieldwork provision. Too many or too few students will make long distance field courses difficult to run.  There are likely to be reduced opportunities for overseas fieldwork; both compulsory and optional.  Changes will take place to ensure financial sustainability of fieldcourses. This may include reducing the number of nights (but preserving the amount of days) on residential field courses or bringing international trips back to the UK.  Reducing the number of nights of residential fieldwork may save departmental money in the short term, but may reduce the value added opportunities for developing group identity and building informal social interactions between staff and students.  Accreditation of degrees by the Geological Society of London in Geology and Earth Science degrees ensures students get substantially more fieldwork over the course of a three year programme

than Geography and Environmental Science programmes.  There is very little optional fieldwork for Earth Science students with accredited degrees, so the volume of compulsory fieldwork is high and students have no option but to pay the additional costs in order to complete their degree. This may impact on the number of students opting to study accredited Earth Science programmes. 6. Recommendations  Degree accreditation for Geography or Environmental Science programmes by either the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers or Institution of Environmental Sciences 11 Source: http://www.doksinet    should consider stipulating a realistic minimum number of fieldwork days. This would help to preserve and support fieldwork provision across programmes and institutions. Departments may wish to seek external sponsorship (e.g industry) of fieldwork to provide sustainably low fieldwork costs to students particularly in Earth Science programmes where

students have a large amount of compulsory fieldwork over the course of the degree. As a minimum recommendation non-residential compulsory local field days should be free to students. Where possible, compulsory residential fieldwork should be heavily subsidised or free to students. Departments may wish to collaborate on overseas field excursions so that international fieldwork opportunities are not lost due to reduced student numbers. Equally, if student numbers are too high, collaboration may reduce pressure on staff in one institution. Further research will be required to revisit the actual provision of fieldwork in the GEES disciplines in 2 to 3 years time to gain a better perspective of proposed long-term changes. 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all of the participants who gave their time freely and were able to talk frankly about their fieldwork experiences. This research was funded by the Higher Education Academy and forms part of a wider cross-disciplinary

initiative investigating the future of fieldwork with Bioscience colleagues Professor Julian Park and Dr Alice Mauchline at the University of Reading and Dr Julie Peacock at the Higher Education Academy. This report reflects the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Higher Education Academy. 12 Source: http://www.doksinet 8. Appendix 1: Respondent Profiles * E = England, NI= Northern Ireland, W = Wales, S=Scotland Respondent Number Programme Geography 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Country* Earth Environmental E Science Science √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Pre 92 Post 92 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ NI W S √ √ √ √ √ √ √ University √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ 13 Source: http://www.doksinet Appendix 2 Questions/prompts for telephone interviews. Establishing the current situation 1. What is your current level of fieldwork provision? Describe all fieldwork that will be covered in this interview - List the residential fieldtrips: location, duration, compulsory/optional and cost to student. - Give approximate no. of one-day (or less than one-day) fieldtrips and the cost to students 2. Over the last 5 years, the amount of fieldwork undertaken by your students has increased, stayed approximately the same or decreased? Is there anything happening/changing now in relation to your plans for fieldwork provision during the academic year 2012/13? 1. Number of fieldwork trips – get answers for both residential trips and day trips 2. Duration of trips (residential only) 3. Timing of fieldwork 4. Staffing arrangements 5. Location of fieldwork 6. Teaching content during fieldwork 7. Use of technology during fieldwork Looking further ahead (over

next 5 years), do you see any changes to your fieldwork provision in the longer term? 1. Number of fieldwork trips – get answers for both residential trips and day trips 2. Duration of trips (residential only) 3. Timing of fieldwork 4. Staffing arrangements 5. Location of fieldwork 6. Teaching content during fieldwork Are there/do you think there will there be any changes to the expected financial contributions from students to cover fieldwork costs? 14 Source: http://www.doksinet 9. References BIS (Department for Business Innovation and Skills) (2011) Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System, June 2011. HMSO Retrieved from http://www.bisgovuk/news/topstories/2011/Jun/he-white-paper-students-at-the-heart-of-the-system Boyle, A., Maguire, S, Martin, A, Milsom, C, Nash, R, Rawlinson, S, Turner, A, Wurthmann, S, & Conchie, S. (2007) Fieldwork is good: the student perception and affective domain, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 299-317 Browne

Review (2010) Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education: The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance. Retrieved from http://www.bisgovuk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-brownereportpdf Butler, R. (2008) Teaching Geoscience through Fieldwork, pp55 HE Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Science. DirectGov (2012) Retrieved From http://www.directgovuk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/Typesoffina nce/DG 194804 Fuller, I., Edmondon, S, France, D, Higgitt, D, & Ratinen, I (2006) International Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Geography Fieldwork for Learning, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 30, (1), pp 89–101 Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) (2011) National Student Survey: Findings and trends 2006-2010, Retrieved from http://www.hefceacuk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2011/201111/11 11pdf Kern, E.L, &

Carpenter, JR (1984) Enhancement of student values, interests and attitudes in Earth Science through a field-oriented approach, Journal of Geological Education, 32, pp.299-305 Kern, E.L, & Carpenter, JR (1986) Effect of field activities on student learning, Journal of Geological Education, 34, pp. 180-183 Maskall, J., & Stokes, A (2008) Designing Effective Fieldwork for Environmental and Natural Sciences, pp 78 HE Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Science. Maw, S.J, Mauchline, AL, Park, JR (2011) Bioscience Fieldwork Provision in Higher Education, Bioscience Education, 17(1), pp. 1-14, http://wwwbioscienceheacademyacuk/journal/vol17/beej-17-1pdf QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2007) Retrieved from http://www.qaaacuk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/subject-guidance/Pages/Honours-degree-benchmarkstatementsaspx The Geological Society (2012) Retrieved from http://www.geolsocorguk/page3253html Vasagar, J, (2012) Tuition fees increase led to 15,000 fewer

applicants, The Guardian, (August 9th) Retrieved from http://www.guardiancouk/education/2012/aug/09/tuition-fees-increase-15000-less-applicants? 15 Source: http://www.doksinet About the Authors Katharine Welsh is a postdoctoral researcher on the Enhancing Fieldwork Learning project and visiting lecturer in physical geography at the University of Chester. Her primary pedagogic research interests are technology enhanced learning and mobile learning for fieldwork whilst her physical geography research interests focus on palaeoenvironments and numerical modelling of catchment-scale sediment dynamics. Derek France is a Physical Geographer and Professor of Pedagogy in Geographical Sciences at the University of Chester. In recent years his research interests have widened to cover technology-enhanced learning and he currently leads a National Teaching Fellowship project on Enhancing Fieldwork Learning (www.enhancingfieldworkorguk) which aims to identify, collate, evaluate and disseminate

good practice related to the use of technology in a wide range of geographical and biological fieldwork environments. 16