The Geological Society of America

Special Paper 461

2009

The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience:

Influencing/actors and implications/or learning
Alison Stokes
Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Experiential Learning in Environmental and Natural Sciences,
University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PIA BAA, UK

Alan P. Boyle
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Liverpool, L69 3Gp, UK

ABSTRACT

Fieldwork has always been a crucial component of undergraduate geoscience

degrees, yet our understanding of the learning processes that operate in a field envi-
ronment is limited. Learning is a complex process, and there is increasing interest in
the role played in this process by the atTective domain, in particular, the link between
atTect (emotion and attitude) and cognition (understanding). This study investigates
the impact of residential geoscience fieldwork on students' atTective responses (e.g.,
feelings, attitudes, motivations), and their subsequent learning outcomes. Qualita-
tive and quantitative data were collected from 62 students from a single UK univer-
sity undertaking a 9 d geologic mapping-training field course. Pre-field class positive
atTects became strengthened, while negative feelings and attitudes were ameliorated
as a result of the fieldwork. However, some aspects of the students' experience gener-
ated new negative responses, while extracurricular social and cultural activities gen-
erated unexpectedly positive responses. In terms of outcomes, the fieldwork enabled
students to develop generic as well as subject-specific skills, e.g., teamwork, decision
making, and autonomy, while engagement in social interactions both within and out-
side of the field environment enabled students to develop valuable interpersonal skills.
Such skills are seldom assessed as learning outcomes, but they are an important part
of students' development from novice to expert geoscientists, and a vital component
of the wider competences required by employers and society.

INTRODUCTION which students learn in the field is limited. Many geoscientists

Fieldwork is widely considered to be one of the most
effective means of learning in the geosciences (e.g., Mond-
lane and Mapani, 2002; Butler, 2008; Kelso and Brown, this
volume). Most importantly, it enables students to contextual-
ize knowledge and make sense of the world through hands-
on interaction with their environment, and to become profi-
cient in a range of subject-specific and generic transferable
skills. However, general understanding of the processes by
might argue that it is not necessary to understand the "how"
of fieldwork-it should just be done. But simply taking stu-
dents into the field does not mean that they will learn, nor
does it guarantee that learning will be effective (Lonergan and
Andresen, 1988; Kent et aI., 1997) or, for that matter, effec-
tively measured. Increasing threats to fieldwork mean that
geoscience departments are under growing pressure to justify
its continued inclusion in the undergraduate geoscience cur-
riculum (Boyle et aI., 2007), so it is important to understand

Stokes, A., and Boyle, A.P., 2009, The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience: Influencing factors and implications for learning, in WhiLmcycr, S.1.,
Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.1., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Perspectives and Modem Approaches: Geological Society of America Special Paper 461,
p. 291-311, doi: 10.113012009.2461 (23). For permission to copy, contact editing@geosociety.org. ©2009 The Geological Society of America. All rights reserved.

291
292 Stokes and Boyle

the particular characteristics of fieldwork as a learning envi-
ronment that help promote learning.
Learning objectives can be classified into three main types
or "domains": cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (Bloom,
1956; Kratwohl et aI., 1964; Dave, 1970). In geology, as in most
other field disciplines, specified outcomes typically emphasize
the cognitive domain (knowledge, understanding, and con-
ceptualization) and, to some extent, the psychomotor domain,
(practical skills) but they exclude the affective domain. The term
"affective" refers to representations of value, and the affective
domain deals with outcomes such as emotions, moods, atti-
tudes, and feelings, which reflect positive or negative personal
value (Clore et aI., 2001). Affective outcomes are valuable in
themselves, e.g., the development of attitudes and behaviors
appropriate to professional practice, but they can also strongly
influence cognitive outcomes (Ashby et aI., 1999; Isen, 2000).
According to Eiss and Harbeck (1969), sensory input, e.g., from
seeing or hearing, prompts responses in the affective domain
that interact with the cognitive and psychomotor domains to
produce learning (Fig. 1). Hence, the affective domain may
playa much more fundamental role in learning than previously
considered, acting as the "driver" for the entire learning process
and therefore representing a necessary precondition for learn-
ing to occur (Eiss and Harbeck, 1969; Iozzi, 1989; Perrier and
Nsengiyumva, 2003; Beard and Wilson, 2005) (Fig. 1). Exam-
ining the role of the affective domain is thus crucial to under-
standing learning processes (Koballa and Glynn, 2007).
The relationship between affect and cognition is of particu-
lar interest since it is cognitive outcomes that educators typically
seek to enhance. This relationship is influenced by aspects of the
academic context such as learning environment, nature of the
OVERT
LEARNING
BEHAVIOR
PROCESS
i (confidence in being able to accomplish a task) and hence hold
academic task, and assessment (Pintrich et aI., 1993). Previous
studies have shown fieldwork to promote development in both
the cognitive and affective domains (Kem and Carpenter, 1984,
1986; Nundy, 1999; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). A recent study
by Boyle et aI. (2007) outlined the link between indicators of
positive affect, such as confidence, motivation, and interest, and
approaches to learning likely to give successful cognitive out-
comes, based on findings from a large (n > 300) cross-institution
and cross-disciplinary study. They suggested that the success of
fieldwork as a learning environment lies, above aU, in its abil-
ity to promote positive affective states, and concluded from their
findings that "fieldwork is good."
Some Theoretical Considerations
This study aims to further our understanding of the learning
processes that take place in the field by investigating the experi-
ences of undergraduate students engaged in residential geologic
fieldwork. We aim to test the hypothesis that fieldwork prompts
positive affective responses in students, to identify the factors
influencing these responses, and to explore the relationship
between affective responses and learning outcomes. Fieldwork
per se is relatively untheorized, but wider pedagogic theories can
provide a useful framework in which to investigate the learning
processes operating in a field environment. These theoretical per-
spectives provide a series of "lenses" through which the findings
of this study are interpreted and discussed.
The link between affective and cognitive learning outcomes
is mediated by "approaches to learning," where a deep approach
is characterized by the intention to understand and a surface
approach is characterized by a focus on memorization (Table 1).
The approach that students adopt is influenced by their percep-
tions of the learning environment, which can in tum influence
learning outcomes (TrigweU and Prosser, 1991; Lizzio et aI.,
2002), where deep approaches lead to imprOVed understanding
and therefore better performance. A link has also been shown
between approaches to learning and affect (Marton and Saljo,
1976), where deep approaches are characterized by interest and
intrinsic motivation, and surface learning is characterized by
extrinsic motivation and fear of failure (Entwistle and Ramsden,
1983; Entwistle and Smith, 2002). Students' affective responses
to fieldwork can thus act as indicators of their approaches to
learning in the field (Boyle et aI., 2007), and hence influence their
learning outcomes from field activities.
When students feel positive, they exhibit greater self-efficacy

I higher expectations of success (Bandura, 1997; Breen and lind-

say, 1999; Clore and Schnall, 2005). Interest acts as an intrinsic
!
SENSORY .............................................................:
motivator for learning, promoting the desire to learn for its own
sake and enhancing cognitive engagement (Silvia, 2008). Con-
INPUT
versely, extrinsic motivation promotes the need to perform tasks
Figure 1. The learning model of Eiss and Harbeck (1969). Learning in order to gain something outside of the activity itself (Whang
is initiated by sensory input and driven by interaction among the af·
and Hancock, 1994), e.g., recognition or high grades. Motivation
fective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains. Overt behavior by the
learner indicates whether or not the required learning has taken place. is further reflected in students' perceptions of the importance of a
 The undergraduate geosciencefieldwork experience
TAE3LE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF DEEP AND SURFACE APPROACHES TO LEARNING (ENTWISTLE, 19B?)
Deep approach
• Intention to understand
• Vigorous interaction with content
• Relate new ideas to previous knowledge
• Relate concepts to everyday experience
• Relate evidence to conclusions
• Examine the logic of the argument
task, the value attached to the outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich
and De Groot, 1990), and whether their goal for learning is to
achieve mastery of particular concepts or skills, or to prove their
ability through performance (Ames and Archer, 1988; Murphy
and Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2000). Boyle et al. (2007) found
residential fieldwork to be effective in promoting high levels of
interest and motivation (the antecedents of deep learning), and to
be highly valued as a learning activity.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, negative feelings such as anxiety can
have the opposite effect, causing students to become demotivated
and disengage from learning. Orion and Hofstein (1994) found
that "novelty space" associated with geographic, cognitive, and
psychological factors inhibited student engagement with field
activity, thus creating a barrier to learning that could be reduced
by adequate preparation. This desire to reduce negative feelings
such as uncertainty and anxiety is natural (Deci and Ryan, 1985;
Bar-Anan et aL, 2009), but it may not always be achievable in a
field situation. Affective states such as moods and emotions can
also facilitate different ways of thinking, e.g., they can influence
problem-solving ability, decision making (Ashby et aI., 1999;
Isen, 2000), and the way in which information is processed dur-
ing learning (Gasper and Clore, 2002; Clore and Schnall, 2005;
Storbeck and Clore, 2005). Most significantly, positive moods
can encourage superficial and less systematic processing strate-
gies (Schnall et aI.. 2008), while negative moods tend to trig-
ger more vigilant and effortful processing styles (Forgas, 200 I).
Hence, a happy mood may not always be conducive to the learn-
ing task at hand, particularly if it requires attention to detail!
Active participation is an important factor in the learning
process (e.g., Kolb, 1984; Bransford et aI., 1999). Active learning
can result in greater retention of materials, enhanced problem-
solving abilities, and improved attitudes and motivation (Snyder,
2003), and it is influenced significantly by the extent to which
students engage with their learning environment (Turner and
Curran, 2006). According to Kolb's experiential learning theory,
learning is "a process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience" (1984, p. 41), and transformation
proceeds through discrete stages of concrete experience, reflec-
tion, generation of new ideas, and subsequent testing. Part of the
assumed effectiveness of fieldwork lies in its ability to promote
interaction with "real-life" examples of abstract concepts and
processes. However, interaction with reality alone is not enough
to generate learning. As indicated by Figure 1, the student must
be engaged both mentally and emotionally, and a key to the lat-
ter is the affective responses generated by direct interaction with
293
Surtace approach
• Intention to complete task requirements
• MemoriZe information needed tor assessments
• Failure to distinguish principles from examples
• Treat task as an external imposition
• Focus on discrete elements without integration
• Unreflectiverless about purpose or strategies
real geology. The exact mechanism by which this engagement
occurs is poorly understood, but it may reflect enhanced sen-
sory stimulation (i.e., involving all the senses, not just vision)
and the receiving of self-relevant feedback (Millar and Millar.
1996; Beard and Wilson, 2005). Active participation in fieldwork
also promotes the development of "memorable episodes," which
can aid in the retention and recall of subject-specific information
(Gagne and White, 1978; Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy,
1999). In his study of elementary school children, Nundy (1999)
found these memorable episodes to be commonly based around
events that created a positive emotional response, e.g., that were
fun and enjoyable. In short, affective responses such as emotion
can aid memory, and hence enhance learning.
Links between affect and learning can be further explained by
neuroscientific processes. For example, the production of adrena-
line during emotional experiences (positive or negative) can assist
the transfer of memories from short-ternl to long-term (Cahill and
McGaugh, 1998; Ashby et aI., 1999), while dopamine released in
response to positive experiences (e.g., the gaining of reward) can
increase levels of motivation and cognitive engagement (Ashby et
ai., 1999; Zull, 2002; Turner and Curran, 2006). In the context of
fieldwork, such positive experiences might relate to the receiving
of positive feedback on performance, the discovery of a particu-
larly useful outcrop, or simply good weather. Negative emotions,
on the other hand (e.g., resulting from a lack of perceived reward
or stress/anxiety) can result in reduced concentration and disen-
gagement from the learning process by inhibiting activity in cer-
tain areas of the brain (e.g., Gold, 2005).
Finally, our understanding of fieldwork as an effective
means of learning can be enhanced by considering the social
processes operating during field activity. All learning environ-
ments are to some extent cultural, social, and interactive (Tobin,
1998; Tal, 2001), but the degree of social interaction and cultural
engagement offered by the field is unique. This is particularly so
in the case of residential fieldwork, where students are required
to become fully immersed in the discipline of geology rather than
simply "do" geology for a day. The types of social interaction
promoted within field environments enable students to construct
knowledge and meaning through collaboration with experts and
peers, while at the same time developing their ability to perform
tasks and solve problems independently (Vygotsky, 1978; Ban-
dura, 1986). By engaging in shared activities and experiences
with other students and faculty members, both within and out-
side of the field environment, students become familiar with the
language, culture, and the ways of thinking and practicing that are
294 Stokes and Boyle
characteristic of the discipline of geology, and thus they start to
shape their identity as "geoscientists" (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Given that students' perceptions of social and cultural context
can be significant to their learning (Alsop and Watts, 2(00), and
given the overtly social nature of most undergraduate fieldwork,
it is surprising that the social context of geoscience fieldwork
has received relatively little attention. A notable exception is the
recent study by Elkins and Elkins (2007), which identifies social
"novelty" as a specific, significant influence on students' motiva-
tion to learn, and an additional component of the "novelty space"
identified by Orion and Hofstein (1994).
STUDY POPULATION AND SETTING
Sixty-two students entering the second year of a 3 or 4 yr
geoscience degree program at a UK university participated in a
9 d geologic-mapping-training field course in the Teruel Prov-
ince of eastern Spain. The study group consisted of 44 males and
18 females, and ages ranged from ] 9 to 37 yr. The study area
featured a succession of well-exposed Mesozoic-Tertiary marine
and continental sediments, and contained large-scale tectonic
structures that were easily observed from the surrounding land-
scape (Simon, 2004) (Fig. 2). The students mapped discrete areas
of increasing structural and stratigraphic complexity in order to
determine the regional geologic and geomorphologic evolution.
By the end of the Held course, they were expected to have met the
following learning objectives:
(I) demonstrate competence in a range of practical field skills;
(2) produce a geologic map, lithostratigraphic column, anno-
tated cross section, and supporting Held notes; and
(3) demonstrate an ability to operate in a safe, professional,
logical, and systematic manner.
Figure 2. Overview of the field mapping area nonh of Aliaga, Spain.
The area is characterized by well-exposed marine and continental sedi-
ments featuring prominent limestone units (A), and large-scale tec-
tonic structures in the fonn of folds (B) and faults (C).
The field course began with a 2 d faculty-led introduction to
the local geology and the principles of geologic mapping, during
which five members of academic faculty each provided instruc-
tion to groups of -12 students. Students then worked in self-
selected groups of three (occasionally four) for the remainder of
the course and were responsible for planning their activities and
managing their time. Faculty were present in the field area for
students to consult for feedback and guidance ｡ｾ＠ and when they
required, and they were also available for fixed periods during
the evening. Each student ｷ｡ｾ＠ expected to work autonomously
within their group, and final grades were awarded on the basis of
individual, rather than group, performance.
Despite the emphasis of the learning objectives on the cog-
nitive and psychomotor domains, several aspects of this field
course were considered likely to impact the affective domain.
The timing of the course at the end of the summer break maxi-
mized "novelty space" by precluding any opportunity for formal
preparatory sessions, or for the students to become reacquainted
socially or refresh their existing knowledge or skills (Orion and
Hofstein, 1994; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). Once at the field loca-
tion, the local. terrain was physically challenging in places, and
the climate offered extremes of heat during the day and low
temperatures at night. In addition, all students and members of
faculty/technical staff were accommodated at the local camp-
site, which had limited, and basic, facilities-thus requiring the
sharing of both social and living spaces between students and
"experts" (Nairn, 2003). From a social perspective, the course
coincided with the local village fiesta-a cultural extravaganza
involving two to three days (and nights) of activities including
dances, parades, and bull-running-which provided the students
with some particularly memorable (and emotional!) episodes.
From a geologic perspective, the successions were well exposed
and relatively continuous throughout the area, but they were also
sufficiently complex, both stratigraphically and structurally, to
reflect the complexity and variability (and hence uncertainty)
inherent in "real" geologic data.
Training in geologic mapping is a fundamental requirement
of undergraduate geoscience education in the UK and Ireland
(Boyle et al., this volume), and in many respects, the field experi-
ence described here is typical of those provided by British and
Irish institutions. In the United States, similar experiences might
be provided by field camps for geology majors, or by some of
the activities described in this volume (e.g., Marshall et aI., this
volume; May et aI., this volume). Despite the focus of this study
on a mapping-training course, the wider implications should be
applicable to a broad range of field experiences, including those
for nonmajors or school students, particularly if they include a
residential element or overseas travel.
METHODOLOGY
This study used pre- and postexperience surveying, indi-
vidual and group interviews, and direct observation of student
activities to address the following questions:
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
1. What are the factors influencing students' affective
responses to residential fieldwork?
2. How do these factors impact on the learning process?
We build on the "generalized" findings of Boyle et ai.
(2007) by investigating changes in affective responses within
a single group of students participating in a common geologic
activity. Pre- and postexperience survey data provide a "quan-
tifiable measure" of changes in the students' feelings and atti-
tudes, but they provide little or no information about factors
likely to have influenced these changes, or about the students'
learning process or experiences (Taber, 2000; Rabiee, 2004).
By applying a mixed qualitative/quantitative approach, this
study gains valuable additional insight into both the learning
processes operating within a field environment, and the fac-
tors influencing them. This combination of statistical analysis
and contextual data has been used successfully by previous
researchers and can inform practice at both local and wider
scales (Libarkin and Kurdziel, 2002a).
Data Collection
Surveys
Students completed a modified version of Boyle et aI.'s
(2007) survey instrument at the beginning and end of the field
course. This survey uses a combination of Likert scale (three-
point), ranked, continuous-scale, and free-text questions to
investigate learning in the affective domain. Question formats
varied according to the nature of the data being sought, and
to promote student engagement with the survey (i.e., prevent
them becoming bored with one particular format). Key sections
within the survey relevant to this study are:
1. core/demographic data;
2. feelings about fieldwork (ranked);
3. anticipation of fieldwork (Likert scale);
4. collaboration, motivation, and enjoyment (Likert scale);
5. procedures in fieldwork (Likert scale);
6. impact of fieldwork on knowledge (continuous scale);
7. perceptions of fieldwork as being useful (continuous
scale); and
8. open questions relating to various aspects of the student
experience, including expectations, good, bad, and memora-
ble experiences, social relationships, and perceptions of skills
acquired (free text).
Similar data were collected in both surveys (post-field
course questions being reflective rather than anticipatory), with
the exception of the demographic and some free-text data. Pre-
and post-field course surveys were returned by 62 (100%) and
53 (85%) students, respectively.
Interviews
In total, 31 interviews were conducted by two indepen-
dent researchers over three separate (i.e., nonadjacent) days
during the field course. Students were interviewed in situ (i.e.,
while engaged in field activity) using an informal conversational
295
approach (Patton, 1990). Interviews would open with a prede-
termined question such as "why do you think it is important to
learn to map?" or, later on in the field course, "how do you feel
you are progressing?" after which the researcher would allow
the conversation to progress naturally, and thus enable themes
and topics to emerge. Qualitative interviews of this type are valu-
able because they allow flexibility in the subject and sequence of
the discussion, and enable students to define their experiences in
their own words (Cohen et al., 2000). Themes identified during
interviews earlier in the field course, such as difficulty in visual-
izing structures, or issues relating to motivation, formed the basis
for questions asked during later interviews. As this approach
required distracting the student from their task, interview times
were restricted to -5-10 min.
An additional group interview of approximately 1 h dura-
tion was conducted with ten students at the end of day seven.
This took a slightly more focused approach using topics and
issues identified from the in situ interviews, but with the word-
ing and sequencing of questions decided during the course of the
interview (Patton, 1990). Issues addressed included motivation,
social and cultural aspects, difficulties experienced by the stu-
dents, the impact of the field course on learning in general, and
issues specific to mapping such as visualizing in three dimen-
sions. In contrast to the field interviews, the setting was outside of
the learning environment and during the students' free time. Par-
ticipants were entirely voluntary and included a mix of genders,
ages, and degrees of physical mobility. This approach enabled
discussions to develop between the participants and a wide range
of responses to be gathered (Cohen et aI., 2000), thus provid-
ing a clearer indication of, and deeper insight into, the range of
attitudes and opinions present within the group (Rabiee, 2004;
Breen, 2006).
All interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder
and transcribed verbatim by the researcher conducting the inter-
VIew.
Observation
Observing learning processes directly can be difficult, and
this is one of the reasons why learning is typically considered
in terms of products (i.e., learning outcomes) (Schmitz, 2006).
Direct observation of fieldwork is rarely reported in the litera-
ture (e.g., Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Lai, 1999), yet this proce-
dure can provide valuable insight into the learning process (Lin-
coln and Guba, 1985). As with the interviews, a semistructured
approach was applied to the observation that enabled us to gather
data to illuminate specific issues (e.g., the nature of social inter-
actions) alongside more emergent themes (Cohen et aI., 2000).
Observations were undertaken by the two researchers during the
faculty-led introductory sessions and on the same days as the in
situ interviews, and focused on (1) looking for evidence from the
students' behavior that fieldwork promoted positive (or nega-
tive) responses, and (2) finding clues as to the factors influencing
these responses. During the faculty-led days, the researchers each
accompanied and observed different groups of students as they
296 Stokes and Boyle
were introduced to the study area and embarked upon prelimi-
nary data collection. For the remainder of the time, the research-
ers located themselves in specific, but separate, parts of the field
area and observed students as they worked within that area.
Spending time with the students during the introductory period
helped them to become used to the presence of the researchers,
and thus to reduce reactivity effects (Cohen et al., 2000).
Data were collected in the form of in situ and reflective field
notes, and photographs. The combination of interviews and obser-
vations in this way is a particularly useful means of cross-check-
ing and hence validating the findings from qualitative research.
Observations provide checks on information gathered from inter-
views, while interviews enable the researcher to explore the inter-
nal feelings of the students, rather than just their external behavior
(Patton. 1990). Both data sets were strengthened through immer-
sion in the learning context over time (Morrison, 1993). In this
study, the observational data are used to support and provide fur-
ther context for inteIp£etations based on the survey and interview
data. rather than as the basis for interpretations per se.
Data Analyst..
Quantitative Data
Quantitative survey data were analyzed using Excel and
SPSS. All data were subject to descriptive statistical analysis,
while inferential statistics were used to investigate differences
between pre- and post-fieldwork responses. Paired data were
collected either a'i three-point (i.e., ordinal) Likert scale data
(l = =
positive, 0 neutral, -1 = negative), or continuous-scale
data in which students indicated their agreement with statements
by marking an X along a continuum (10 em line) ranging from
"totally disagree" (0) to "totally agree" (10). The students' score
represented the distance to the X from the zero point, measured
to the nearest 0.1 cm. Boyle et a1. (2007) applied pararnetric tests
to their paired data on the grounds that these are more powerful
than nonparametric tests and are robust against minor violations,
particularly if sample sizes are large (Kinnear and Gray, 2000).
This study had a significantly smaller sample size than Boyle et
al. (2007), and the majority of data were found not to be nonna! Iy
distributed; hence, all paired data were compared using nonpara-
metric methods. The continuous data were analyzed using the
Wilcoxon signed ranks test, which is the non parametric equiva-
lent if the t-test and assumes a continuous scale of measurement.
Paired Likert scale data were analyzed using the Sign test, which,
although relatively low power, is more appropriate for the limited
scale range (three-point). which can result in a high proportion of
tied ranks, and hence erroneous calculations of P values using the
Wilcoxon signed ranks test (Roberson et at, ] 995). Differences
between subgroups, e.g., gender, were tested using the X2 test
Qualitative Data
All interview transcripts were coded independently by
both researchers using NVivo 2.0, and key themes were identi-
fied using thematic content analysis (Patton, 1990; Libarkin and
Kurdziel, 2002b; Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Some codes were
assigned a priori. e.g., w here a specific topic had been introduced
by the researcher, while others were assigned inductively based
on the words and phrases used by the students. Constant com-
parison (Taber, 20(0) was used to check the internal consistency
of the codes ｡ｾｳｩｧｮ･､＠ to the data, and coding was modified where
appropriate. A similar approach was taken to coding the obser-
vation data. The researchers assigned the data a total of 74 and
83 codes, respectively. and achieved over 70% agreement in the
first instance. Further comparison and discussion resolved any
remaining discrepancies. The data were then subject to secondary
coding (Miles and Huberman, 1984), and the dominant themes
fonning the basis for subsequent interpretation were identified.
Free-text survey responses were analyzed using thematic
content anal ysis to identify the main categories of response to
each question, and then they were quantified to provide a semi-
quantitative estimation of the "strength" of students' perceptions
or views on particular a'ipects of their experience (Kempa and
Orion, 1996).
It should be stressed that this investigation makes no attempt
to identify gains in knowledge or understanding resulting from
this fieldwork-we focus on furthering our understanding of the
student experience of residential fieldwork, and on identifying
factors that influence the learning process.
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
This section summarizes key findings from the pre- and
post-field course surveys. Boyle et al. (2007) provided empirical
evidence that students' feelings and attitudes toward residential
fieldwork improve as a result of their field experience. Based on
a sample of over 300 students participating in a variety of field
courses across seven UK institutions, they identified statistically
significant gains (at 95% confidence level or above) in affective
responses relating to anticipation, knowledge, usefulness, collab-
oration, motivation and enjoyment, and procedures. The findings
presented here are based on 62 students from a single UK institu-
tion participating in a single, common field activity.
Anticipation and Reflection
As a preliminary measure of anticipation and reflection, stu-
dents were asked to select and rank three options from a choice
of ten (five positive and five negative) that best reflected their
feelings at the beginning and end of the field course. The find-
ings are summarized in Figure 3. Students' feelings were found
to be generally positive at the start of the field course (64% of all
responses), and to become strengthened as a result of undertak-
ing the fieldwork (89% of all responses). However, we found that
32 students (57%) selected at least one negative feeling in the
precourse survey, implying that over half of the cohort embarked
on the fieldwork with some degree of anxiety or concern. At the
end of the field course, this had reduced to ] 3 students. most of
whom indicated that they "found it hard:'
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience 297

A Positive feelings Negative feelings

35

rI) 30
())
rI)
t:
0 25
c.
ｾ＠ '"
15 20
lii
.0 15
E
::;,
Z
10

0
Eageny Can't Relaxed Happy Confident Concerned Warned Don't Don'l Apprehensive
anticipating wait about k.now want
what is what to to go
expected expect

B Positive feelings Negative feelings

40
Key
35
DRank3
'"t: Q)
30

'"0c, 25
_Rank2

ｾ＠
-...
.0
0
Q)
20

15
_Rank1

E
::l
Z 10

0
Leamed Worthwhile Thoroughly Glad we Want to Found Wish not Did not Lived up Didn't
a lot enjoyed it had to go gO again it hard compulsory enjoy 10 my fears know
what 10
RXnP.N
Figure 3. Students' feelings toward fieldwork as measured (A) pre-field course and (B) post field course. Students were
presented with ten options (indicated on the x-axis) and asked to select and rank the three that they felt reflected their own
feelings. Positive feeling amongst the students increased as a result of the field course.

A series of three-point Likert scale questions enabled closer
investigation of students' feelings toward specific field activities
(Table 2). Differences in pre-- and post-field course data were
found to be significant in relation to visiting a different place,
and getting to know facility members (at 90% confidence level
or above). Mean scores also increased in relation to getting to
know other students, working all day in the outdoors, and achiev-
ing Ihe academic demands of the work, and decreased in rela-
tion to coping with physical challenges. Although none of these
changes is statistically significant, the data are indicative of gen-
erally positive feelings. Perceptions of physical fitness and ability
to meet physical challenges have previously been recognized as
sources of anxiety, particularly amongst females (Maguire, 1998;
Bracken and Mawdsley, 2004), Gender differences in relation to
coping with physical challenges were found to be weakly signifi-
cant prior to the field course (Xl 5.67,p = 0.059), where males
were more positive about their abilities than females, although
no significant difference was identified at the end. This finding
seems to confirm that of Boyle et al. (2007) that fieldwork can act
as a leveler of affective responses.
Collaboration, Motivation, and Enjoyment
Students' feelings in relation to collaboration, motivation,
and enjoyment did not appear to change significantly as a result
of Ihe fieldwork (Table 2). However, positive feelings toward
298 Stokes and Boyle

TABLE 2. SUMMARY STATISTICAL DATA FOR SURVEY QUESTIONS SCORED BY THREE-POINT LIKERT SCALE
(POSITIVE", 1; NEUTRAL =0 0; NEGATIVE -1) =
Pre-fieldwork data Post-fieldwork data Significance
AnticiEation and reflection n mean SD n mean SD (two-tailed)
a) Getting to know the staff (faculty) 62 0.742 0.477 51 0.882 0.325 0.077§
b) Visiting a different place 62 0.887 0.319 51 1.000 0.000 0.016t
cJ Working all day in the outdoors 62 0.46B 0.671 51 0.529 0.644 0.607
d) Coping with physical challenges 62 0.629 0.579 51 0.588 0.572 1.000
e) Achieving the academic demands of the work 62 0.516 0.646 50 0.600 0.535 0.791
f) Getting to know the other students on the course 62 0.790 0.517 50 0.843 0.464 0.549
Collaboration, motivation and enj0:iment
a) Fieldwork is an activity I enjoy 61 0.689 0.564 53 0.792 0.409 0.267
b) I would recommend fieldwork to others 61 0.738 0.513 53 0.792 0.454 1.000
c) I like to be challenged in my academic work 61 0.557 0.646 53 0.755 0.477 0.167
d) The more fieldwork I undertake, the more interesting 61 0.574 0.618 53 0.679 0.547 0.238
the work becomes to me
e) It is important to be able to work with others 61 0.918 0.277 53 0.981 0.137 0.375
f) I use colleagues as an information source 61 0.639 0.517 53 0.642 0.484 1.000
g) I trust the contribution of my group/peers when 61 0.672 0.507 53 0.755 0.434 0.332
completing group work
h) I would always check the group's answer. and if I 61 0.574 0.531 53 0.774 0.466 0.096§
thought it was incorrect, I would make up my own
mind
1) J sometimes lose interest in the work because of the 60 0.267 0.686 53 0.226 0.697 0.832
weather
Procedures in fieldwork
a) I feel fully prepared for this fieldwork 62 0.210 0.656 53 0.264 0.593 0.648
b) The information that we have been given about this 62 0.258 0.676 53 0.509 0.576 0.052§
fieldwork has answered all of my questions
c) I am careful to record exactly what I observe 62 0.532 0.593 53 0.528 0.608 1.000
d) I am not fazed by having to use technical equipment 62 0.581 0.560 53 0.698 0.503 0.238
e) I am comfortable reading a map. Le., I can 62 0.645 0.603 53 0.906 0.295 0.003·
recognize hills, valleys, give accurate grid
references, etc.
f) I find it easy to visualize things in 3D 62 0.258 0.626 53 0.434 0.537 0.332
g) I know how to calculate true dip 62 0.306 0.715 53 0.792 0.409 0.000'
h) I know what is meant by strike 62 0.548 0.619 53 0.943 0.233 0.000'
I) I know the difference between the apparent offset 62 -0.032 0.768 53 0.358 0.682 0.001·
and actual offset of a fault
Note: Sign test was used to test data for statistical significance.
Key: SD-standard deviation; 3D---4hree dimensions,
'Significant at 99% or above.
tSignificant at 95% or above.
§Significant at 90% or above.

working with others were found to be exceptionally high both
before and after the field course, thus identifying collaboration
as a valued aspect of learning (Kempa and Orion, 1996). This in
it'!'elfis a significant finding, since the value that students attribute
to learning activities can be an indicator of motivation (Pintrich
and DeGroot, 1990; Breen and Lindsay, 1999), Students also val-
ued the opportunity to work independently of academic faculty
(Marques et aI., 2003), showing high levels of trust in their col-
leagues and a willingnes.<; to use them as sources of information.
The field course was designed to encourage both collaborative
and independent working, and success in the latter is reflected
in the students becoming increasingly positive about making up
their own minds in coUaborative situations (p = 0,096). Issues
relating to collaboration and wider social learning are further dis-
cussed in the qualitative analysis.
Previous research has shown that students find fieldwork
enjoyable and motivating (Kern and Carpenter, 1984, 1986;
Manner, 1995), and that these feelings can become enhanced
as a result of engaging in field activity (Boyle et al., 2007). The
fact that this field course did not prompt statistically signifi-
cant changes does not mean that the students did not enjoy or
become motivated by their experience; indeed, the mean scores
for the majority of the statements in this section are extremely
encouraging, indicating a high degree of positive feeling both at
the beginning and the end of the fieldwork. However, what these
data do demonstrate is that, while fieldwork might be success-
ful at prompting positive affective responses, it may not always
enhance them.
Procedures in Field work
Prior to the field course, students seemed unsure about their
level of preparation, and their ability to perform some field tasks
(Table 2). Perceived lack of preparation can be a source of anxiety
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience 299

(Glynn and Koballa, 2006), and this is likely to have contributed
to the negative feeling identified at the start of the field course
(Fig. 3). Despite this, at the end of the field course, the students
demonstrated increased self-efficacy (i.e., belief in being able to
complete a ta'lk) in field procedures such as reading and interpret-
ing a map and calculating true dip, and in their understanding
of concepts such as strike and the difference between actual and
apparent fault offsets. While these procedures relate more to cog-
nitive and psychomotor skills, feelings of efficacy Can be indica-
tors of interest and motivation (Bandura, 1986; Pintrich and De
Groot, 1990) and hence provide an indirect measure of change in
affective state.
The students were less certain about their ability to visual-
ize geologic features in three dimensions-positive responses
increased from just 35% to 45% after the field course, and there
was no significant increase in mean scores. We found males to
be significantly more positive than females about their visualiza-
tion abilities before the field course (X2 =6.45, p = 0.040), but no
significant differences were identified between the genders at the
end. This finding is interesting since previous research suggests
that males can develop better spatial-visualization skills than
females (e.g., Orion et al., 1997), although the extent to which a
true gender difference exists in relation to spatial understanding
remains unclear (Ishikawa and Ka'ltens, 2005).
Knowledge and Usefulness
Statements relating to knowledge and usefulness were used
to explore students' perceptions of the academic value of field-
work. In general, We found agreement with statements to be
high both before and after the fieldwork, thus demonstrating the
extent to which fieldwork was valued as an academic activity
Crable 3). Interestingly, we identified a significant difference
between pre- and post-fieldwork data, and decrease in mean
score, relating to the statements "field work will help my under-
standing of the SUbject" and "first-hand experience of themes/
topics etc. studied in class makes it easier to understand them."
Thus, while the students recognized the value and importance
of fieldwork, they appeared less certain about the impact of
fieldwork on their understanding. Similar findings concerning
perceptions of understanding have been reported by Boyle et
al. (2007) and may reflect students' feelings about the interpre-
tive nature of geology, and the "fuzziness" of real geologic data
(Raab and Frodeman, 2002).
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
Ten major themes were identified from the qualitative data
as representing the key aspects of students' fieldwork experience
(Fig. 4):
(1) demographic factors,
(2) personal factors,
(3) physical nature of field area,
(4) academic context,
(5) logistical factors,
(6) social/cultural context,
(7) experiential learning,
(8) social learning,
(9) geologic/academic outcomes, and
(10) non geologic/nonacademic outcomes.
These themes are explored using the 3P learning model
of Biggs (2003) as a conceptual framework. This model treats
learning as a system in which outcomes ("products") result from
the interactions between input ("presage") factors (Le., those relat-
ing to student characteristics and academic context) and students'
approaches to learning (i.e., whether these are surface or deep)
(Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983). Boyle et al. (2007) found field-
work to be effective in promoting the positive affective responses
associated with deep approaches to learning, and, by implication,
enhanced learning outcomes. While our qualitative data do not
provide direct evidence for a deep or surface approach, these can
be inferred from students' affective responses to presage factors,

TABLE 3. SUMMARY STATISTICAL DATA FOR SURVEY QUESTIONS SCORED BY CONTINUOUS SCALE (0 = TOTALLY DISAGREE;
10 = TOTALLY AGREE)
Pre-fieldwork: data Post-fieldwork: data Significance
Knowledge n mean SO n mean SO Z (two-tailed)
a) Firsthand experience of themes/topics studied in class 62 8.302 1.880 53 7.994 1.685 -1.792 0.073'
makes it easier to understand them
b) Fieldwork gives me a chance to develop my problem- 62 7.976 1.963 53 8.338 1.515 -0.842 0.400
solving skills
Percet!tion of fieldwork as being useful
a) Fieldwork will help my understanding of the subject 62 8.682 1.672 51 8.365 1.397 2.076 0.0381
b) It is important to know how to solve problems in the field 62 8.576 1.813 51 9.124 1.057 -1.714 0.086'
c) Without a field experience, my degree subject would be 61 7.328 2.534 53 8.336 2.055 -3.334 0.001"
too academic and theoretical
d) Fieldwork skills will be important to me in my choice of 61 7.580 2.558 53 7.958 1.976 -0.136 0.892
career
Note: Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test data for statistical Significance.
·Significant at 99% or above.
tSignificant at 95% Or above.
§Significant at 90% or above.
300 Stokes and Boyle

Presage Process Product

Student characteristics Learning Outcomes

ｾ＠ ［ｾ＠ "

• age • prior experience • learning by doing • mappinglfield skills

• gender • preparation • linking theory with practice • subject-specific knowledge
• physical ability • expectations • engagement with reality • visualization skills
I
I • coping with uncertainty
Field course characteristics I
I
I Nongeologlc(
Geologic/Academic N d I
onaca emlc
I
I
I
• nature of !emlin! • accommodation
I
physical challenge • food I
• learning environment • weather
_.1_
• social relationships/skills
• location • illness/injury • confidence

• nature of task/challenge • social activities

• teaching context • cultural activities
• social context • social relationships

Figure 4. Factors characterizing the students' learning experience as indicated by the qualitative data. Affective responses
to presage factors infiuence students' approaches to learning, which subsequently influence the learning outcomes. Ap-
proaches to learning are also implied from the learning processes observed within the field environment. Solid lines
indicate direct influences on Learning; dashed lines indicate indirect links to learning approaches. Factors are based on the
"3P" model of Biggs (2003) (see text for discussion).

and from their feelings and attitudes toward the learning pro-
cesses operating during the fieldwork.
Factors Influencing the Student Experience
Six of the ten themes identified relate to the input, or "pres-
age" stage ofieaming (Fig. 4). These themes relate both to student
characteristics. and characteristics of the field course, the latter of
which are subdivided according to academic/geologic aspects,
and nonacademic/nongeologic (i.e., extra-curricular) aspects. It
is interesting to note the similarity among the four major field
cOllfSe characteristics identified from this study (boxes 3-6 in
Fig. 4) and the factors defining "novelty space" (Orion and Hof-
stein, 1994; Elkins and Elkins, 2007). This provides independent
support for the novelty space theory, which states that barriers to
successful engagement with learning are created by geographical
(physical), cognitive (academic), psychological (logistical), and
social/cultural factors.
Demographic factors. We found that demographic factors
were more likely to triangulate with other factors, e.g., attitudes
to physical challenges, than to produce affective responses in and
of themselves. Hence, they are not considered here in detaiL
Personal/actors. As indicated by the survey findings, stu-
dents embarked on the fieldwork with generally positive atti-
tudes and feelings. While some students did not know what to
expect from the field course (Fig. 3), the majority held opti-
mistic expectations that embraced the full range of cognitive,
affective, psychomotor and social factors. Quotations from
both interviews and written (survey) data are used throughout
this section to provide further insight into, and context for, the
students' personal experiences of the fieldwork. The following
statements exemplify some of the students' expectations and
hopes for the field course.
"A better understanding of the subject, great experience and lots of fun."

Student Characteristics
Student characteristics are defined by demographic (e.g., age, "Learn new skills and improve on others, get to know other students
gender) and personal factors (e.g., prior experience, expectations). better."
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
Expectations can be shaped by prior experience, which itself
is an important precursor to affective response (picard et al.,
2004; Crossman, 2007). We found students' perceptions of their
previous fieldwork experiences to be largely positive, and where
negative feelings were identified these did not persist to the end
of the field course, further confirming that fieldwork can act as a
leveler of anxiety (Boyle et aI., 2(07).
"I really didn't want to come here, but I'm glad I did, because like,
the social side's been really good-I've spoken to people I've never
spoken to before, even [on previous field courses)."
Preparation is important for engagement with learning
(Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Marshall et aI., this volume) and
lack of preparation (real or perceived) can be a source of anxiety
(Glynn and Koballa, 2(06). This is no doubt reflected by some of
the less positive precourse feelings identified from the quantita-
tive data. The faculty-led introductory sessions helped students to
overcome these feelings by providing the opportunity to refresh
existing knowledge and skills, become reacquainted with col-
leagues, and thereby increase self-confidence.
"I think 1 had forgotten over 95% of what 1 had learned so I was really
happy with the lecturers having preparation sessions-it really helped."
Thus, in terms of personal characteristics, these findings
confirm the students' perceptions of the field course as generally
positive and influenced by their prior experiences of fieldwork.
They also provide further insight into some of the factors likely
to contribute to initial feelings of anxiety or concern, and identify
preparation as an important means of reducing these.
Field Course Characteristics: Geologic and Academic Factors
Geologic and academic factors comprise the physical
nature of the field course, (e.g., location, nature of terrain), and
the academic context (e.g., nature of the learning task, social
context of learning).
Physical factors. Student'>' attitudes toward the physical
location of the field course were generally positive. They enjoyed
being "away from the beaten track," and were impressed by the
landscape and scenery. Feelings were more varied, however,
toward the local terrain and its associated physical challenges.
Students with mobility limitations expressed some frustration
at their inability to access parts of the field area, although this
did not necessarily prevent them from participating in learning
activities. Previous authors have discussed the "gendered" nature
of fieldwork (e.g., Nairn, 1996; Maguire, 1998; Hall et aI., 2004),
and we identified perceptions amongst both male and female stu-
dents that fieldwork (and geology as a discipline) is a typically
"masculine" endeavor. This was particularly evident in relation
301
to the physical aspects of the fieldwork, where a lack of confi-
dence amongst females during the early stages of fieldwork was
often exacerbated by a perceived (but not necessarily deliberate)
"macho" attitude amongst some of the male students (Bracken
and Mawdsley, 20(4).
"If there's a mountain to overcome the boys will no doubt run up it,
thinking 'we have to get up there before the girls do.'"
Ultimately, the females proved to be no less able than the
males, and although these differences in feelings decreased as
the field course progressed, they were no doubt influenced by the
gender ratio within the group (which was biased toward males
44: 18) and the tendency for single-gender mapping groups to
inhibit social interaction.
Academic factors. Students' feelings and attitudes toward
both fieldwork as a learning activity, and the field as a learning
environment, were overwhelmingly positive. They displayed a
high degree of interest in their surroundings (geologic and social)
and also expressed increased motivation to learn in the field com-
pared to other environments.
"I have more motivation to be getting up here than 1 would at home or
to be going to a lecture."
"If it's interesting you are a lot more likely to get up and do [fieldwork]."
Some preference for more passive forms of learning was
encountered, albeit rarely, thus confirming that fieldwork is not
necessarily enjoyable or desirable for all students.
"I like the outdoors, but I find it easier to learn in a lecture hall than
in the field."
Although positive about fieldwork per se, some students were
less positive about their learning task (geologic mapping) and dis-
played mixed feelings about their abilities to perform and achieve
academically. Visualizing in three dimensions and coping with
uncertainty were identified as particular areas for concern--the
former being well recognized as "troublesome" for novice stu-
dents (Ishikawa and Kastens, 2005; Rapp et al., 2(07). Students
also lacked confidence in their ability to work independently,
particularly during the early stages of the field course, although
the requirement to work collaboratively helped to counter these
feelings by providing students with an element of "social sup-
port." Concerns about academic achievement reflected not only a
desire to perfonn well, but also the recognition that independent
302 Stokes and Boyle

mapping would be a major requirement of the students' final year
honor's project-for which many rightly viewed this fieldwork
as "training."
"[Mapping] is my least tavorite thing about geology but I'm trying to
battle through it because I know it's important."
"It is just scary because we are so independent. I mean, being on our
own is really a confidence issue. We need to improve, and just believe
in our own assumptions."
"Everything's counted now, everything at this stage of our degree is
counted, and [we] want to do well and get a good degree."
These findings highlight the importance of physical and
academic factors in shaping students' feelings toward their
learning, and they provide important insight into motivational
factors. The comments relating to interest and preference for
the field as a learning environment imply that, for some stu-
dents, learning was intrinsically motivated. However, to suc-
ceed in their degree, students must demonstrate proficiency in
geologic mapping, and this is reflected in their concerns about
ability to perform and achieve academically, which are more
indicative of extrinsic motivation.
Field Course Characteristics: Nongeologic or Nonacademic
Factors
Nongeologic and nonacademic factors emerged from the
qualitative data as exerting a considerable influence on the stu-
dents' affective responses, and their overall fieldwork experi-
ence (Table 4).
Logistical factors. Logistical factors, e.g., accommodation,
food, and climate (too hot during the day, too cold at night),
tended to induce negative rather than positive feelings and were
frequently encountered as demotivators to learning. Practi-
cal arrangements are well known to act as demotivating factors
(Fletcher and Dodds, 2004), and many students found issue with
the camping facilities and food, particularly during the early
stages of the field course when the novelty of being in an unfamil-
iar location was greatest. The degree of negative feeling toward
the weather, however, which was consistently hot, dry, and sunny,
was somewhat surprising, especially given students' general lack
of enthusiasm for working in wind and rain. Nonetheless, weather
was identified by almost a third of the students a<; the "worst"
aspect of their experience. In addition, the climate exacerbated
feelings of tiredness caused by lack of sleep or length of time
spent in the field, causing loss of concentration and further ｲ･､ｵ｣ｾ＠
ing motivation levels. In light of this, many students (but not all)
chose to develop strategies to avoid the hottest parts of the day.
"The heat here is sometimes unbearable, it really smacks you in the
face so it is difficult to concentrate."
"¥inat we are doing is going at a reasonable rate with few breaks, and
we seem to finish earlier so we can get out of the sun."
A further logistical factor impacting on motivation was the
outbreak of a sickness bug amongst some students and academic
faculty toward the end of the field course-student<; were not
asked to comment on this 1
Social and cultural factors. In contrast, social and cultural
aspects of the field course were viewed as overwhelmingly posi-
tive, attracting the greatest number of responses in relation to the

TABLE 4. SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE STUDENTS' LEARNING EXPERIENCE IDENllF1ED FROM OPEN SURVEY QUESTIONS
Aspect of Number of Geologic/academic factors Nongeologic/nonacademic factors
eX2erience ｲ･ｳｾｮ＠
Best 50 Leaming process 20 Social activities 20
Placellocalion 6 Cultural activities 19
Engaging in physical activity 3 Camping/food
Receiving feedback Weather

Worst 50 Social context 2 Weather 18

Duration of field course 2 illness/injury 16
Safety 1 Tiredness 7
Uncertainty/confusion 1 Campinglfood 6
Lack of physical ability 1 Local people 5
Cultural activities 1
_7_ ｾ＠

Most memorable 48 Geology/scenery 10 Cultural activities 32

learning process 2 Social activities 11
Camping/food 3
12 ｾ＠
"Because a single response may contain more than one factor. the total sum of factors relating to a particular aspect
tgeolQgicJacademic + ｮｯｾ･ｬＰＡｩ｣ｊ｡､ｭＩ＠ may be greater than the number 01 ｲ･ｳｾｮＮ＠
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
"best" and "most memorable" aspects of the field course; the
fiesta was identified by over half of the students as their "most
memorable" experience (Table 4). While academic factors were
rarely identified as the "most memorable," they attracted an
equivalent number of responses to both social and cultural fac-
tors a..<; the "best" aspect of the students' experience.
"The academic and social are both important to me."
"It·s the social experience as well-there are certain things that you
won't get at home, but over here the experience counts for more as you
are in the field as well."
The social benefits of fieldwork are well recognized (Fuller et
al., 2006), and in this study, the social and cultural activities pro-
vided enhanced opportunities for students to form social relation-
ships and friendships, and facilitated the breaking down of social
barriers- particularly between genders. These activities also acted
as motivating factors for learning and were viewed by some stu-
dents as a "reward" for completing academic work during the day.
"During the day ...there seems to be still the separate boy and girl groups.
but when it comes to socializing in the evenings it's really different"
"r feel more motivated to get up and do work 'cos like, we have the
evenings otlto do what we want so 1, like, think that I don't mind hav-
ing to work the long hours in the sun."
"When I get to go out on the night ... you're kind of, like, getting a
reward for working hard in the day."
Attitudes toward the social and cultural activities, and par-
ticularly the fiesta, were not unanimously positive, however,
and some students considered being unable to fully "opt-out" of
activities (e.g., by suffering disturbed sleep through noise) det-
rimental to their learning. Further, and perhaps unsurprisingly,
motivation appeared to "peak" during the time of greatest social
and cultural activity, with a subsequent decline clearly evident
from the close of the fiesta (day seven) to the end of the course.
At this point, despite having made significant progress toward
meeting their outcomes. students began to lose motivation and
disengage from the learning task. AneCdotally, this effect is well
recognized by sea..'>oned field geologists, who frequently con-
sider themselves at greatest risk toward the end of their fieldwork
when thoughts start to tum to home.
"We're thinking about going back and what we're going to do when we
get back now, which is difficult and we're not focu.<;ing on [the work]."
303
We found that the nongeologic/nonacademic aspects of the
field course generated mixed feelings among the students. Logis-
tical factors often prompted negative feelings, which reduced
motivation levels and caused students to disengage from their
learning. Students were motivated by the social and cultural activ-
ities, although this appeared to be primarily extrinsic, with the
activities providing a perceived "reward" for learning. However,
as evidenced by Nundy (1999), the positive feelings associated
with memorable experiences encountered during fieldwork can
play an important role in the learning process. Further, the social-
i703tion of the students outside of the field environment helped to
strengthen social relationships and interactions during the field-
work. This is discussed further in the section on social learning.
Overall, we found that presage factors prompted both posi-
tive and negative feelings in the students, and that they appeared
both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to learn. These find-
ings are suggestive of the students adopting both deep and sur-
face approaches to learning.
Learning Processes
By interviewing the students while actively engaged in their
learning Lask, we gained "here and now" information about their
perceptions of, and feelings toward, their learning, and gained
insight into the processes operating during fieldwork. Our find-
ings suggest that learning was predominantly influenced by expe-
riential and social processes.
Experiential Learning
This fieldwork provided students with the opportunity to
experience geology in an authentic setting, to contextualize their
existing knowledge by relating theory to reality, and to gain com-
petency in a range of subject-specific and generic skills. They con-
sidered "learning by doing" highly significant to developing their
understanding of geology, and placed particular value in gaining
direct experience with their subject matter, linking theory with
practice, and developing their confidence by applying their knowl-
edge, and testing out new ideas and theories (I.e., learning from
their mistakes!). The fieldwork also provided the students with
"memorable episodes" (e.g., Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy,
1999), which they felt contributed toward their overall learning.
"It's not just about physically putting stuff on a map. it's also under-
standing .. .like, you learn about faults, but you can't really understand
them until you've experienced them."
"You can learn the theory of [geology], but it's completely different
when you've got to put it into practice."
"It's about confidence, I mean to go up and touch a rock and say 'it's
such and such: you need it, but if you're wrong, so what, it's a learn-
ing process."
304 Stokes and Boyle
"You need to get out in the field' cos, like, you learn a lot more. It is so
much better, it is an experience which will stay in your mind forever."
Visualization is a significant a..">pect of cognition (Zull, 2002)
and, while experiential learning typically involves multiple sen-
sory experiences, "seeing" was the most critical a..<;pect of the
students' learning experience. Students often find the relationship
between two-dimensional views and three-dimensional reality
troublesome (Ishikawa and Kastens, 2005; Petcovic and Libarkin,
2007; Rapp et aI., 2007), and the survey data indicate that, to some
degree, this difficulty persisted for many to the end of the field
course. This wa..<; characterized in the field by negative responses
indicating confusion, reduced confidence, and frustration.
"It becomes annoying when you can't visualize it-you just sit there
and are really frustrated."
According to Frodeman, "spatial understanding is kinetic; to
understand three-dimensional space one must move through it"
(2003, p. 112). Spatial understanding is fundamental to geosci-
ence knowledge domains (Golledge et al., 2008), and we found
that the physical process of collecting data from three-dimen-
sional geologic phenomena. translating the data onto the map,
and then visually relating the resulting two-dimensional patterns
to three-dimensional reality combined to be highly significant
in helping students to develop their viSUal-spatial abilities, and
hence transform their understanding. As students became aware
of their progress, so their self-confidence, feelings of self-efficacy,
and motivation to learn increased-aU important antecedents to
cognitive engagement (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990) and a deep
approach to learning.
"Working around this area, and actuaUy being able to see the hills. and
see the different units ... you can see what's going on on the ground.
Whereas if you just look at a fiat page with different colors and lines,
it's not always easy to work out what it's doing."
"You first tUfnUp and you don't know what is going on or what you are
looking at, but as time goes by, you start to see what is going on and
understand what you are looking at, and you get enthused because you
actually understand what is going on."
These findings are clearly reflective of a deep rather than a
surface approach to learning (Table 1), Indeed, it is difficult to
see how students could develop an understanding of the geologic
evolution of the study area-which requires the integration of
knowledge and ideas from a range of domains-without adopt-
ing a deep approach, or without physically interacting with their
learning environment
Social Learning
The field is a social as well as a physical Jeaming environment
(Marques et al., 2003; Hall et aI., 2004), and both social and physi-
cal interactions are crucial to the learning experience (Meredith et
aI., 1997). These interactions were facilitated in the field by the
breaking down of social barriers via social and cultural activities,
and by the social context of the learning task. Attitudes to collab-
orative working, and by implication socialleaming, were largely
positive, and many students expressed a preference for smaller
group sizes, which they felt allowed for greater interaction with
faculty members, and encouraged a more active type of learning.
"After a while [in a bigger group] you are just listening, you're not talk-
ing to other people. "it is just listening and then your brain becomes
tired because you're not occupied."
Social interaction is fundamental to cognitive development,
and the types of social learning in which students engaged were
found to vary over the field course. The initial stages of learn-
ing were driven through interactions with faculty and graduate
students. Students were assisted in making initial observations
and collecting preliminary data, and in constructing meaning
from their findings (Vygotsky, 1978). Student,,> also gained the
competencies necessary to work independently by observing and
imitating the behavior of others (Bandura, 1986), for example,
in learning how to take compass bearings, or translate field data
onto their maps, Ultimately, the students were required to work
independently, but continued social interaction both within and
between the mapping groups enabled them to share information
and knowledge, collaborate on solving problems, and engage
in "peer-support" (e.g., through keeping each other motivated,
working together to plan their activities, etc,), This, combined
with interaction with faculty and graduate students, enabled stu-
dents to gradually acquire the knowledge, skills, and behaviors
characteristic of geology, within the context of "real" field activi-
ties (Lave and Wenger. 199 I).
Many students had embarked on the field course with work-
ing relationships and friendships developed during previous resi-
dential fieldwork, while others formed entirely new social bonds,
These relationships were highly valued. particularly in terms of
future collaborative working and academic support.
"I think a big part of the degree was getting to know people when
you're in the field so you work together in the field, and then when you
get back you're working in groups in tutoria1s or lectures."
While a degree of friction, particularly within mapping
groups, was inevitable, at the end of the field course the major-
ity of students reported improved relationships both with
their group members, and with other students. They were also
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
overwhelmingly positive about their relationships with "experts"
(e.g., faculty members, graduate students, and technical staff), and
many reported increased confidence in interacting with faculty
members (Table 5). These findings reinforce the strongly positive
feelings toward collaborative working identified from the quanti-
tative data. Students perceived "experts" a'i providers of guidance
and support rather than "teachers" or transmitters of knowledge
and, while initially lacking in confidence about working inde-
pendently, demonstrated a clear preference for developing their
independence over being "taught." This is consistent with a deep
approach to learning, whereby understanding can be enhanced
through working autonomously (Hill and Woodland, 2(02). The
receipt of feedback was particularly valued because it provided
the only means by which students could gain a measure of their
progress. The guidance and reassurance provided through feed-
back helped to improve the students' self-confidence, and thus
increase levels of motivation and engagement (Crossman, 2(07).
"I don't want to be led into any answers, I just need some reassurance
to know that I am heading in the right direction. It is about building
your confidence up."
"We got the lecturer to check [the map] and he said it was looking
alright, so extra motivation, which was brilliant."
Many of the learning environments that students encounler
over the course oftheir undergraduate studies involve some degree
of social learning, but this is most evident in relation to residen-
tial fieldwork, where students become immersed in "living," a'i
opposed to simply "doing," their discipline (Stokes, 2(08). In this
study we found physical and social interactions to be fundamental
in helping students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and behav-
iors that are characteristic of the discipline of geology, and which
reflect their transition from novice toward expert geoscientists.
Learning Outcomes
As stated previously, it is not the intention of this study to
identify the cognitive learning outcomes or gains resulting from
this fieldwork (typically geologic/academic). Rather, we aim to
describe evidence for subject-specific and more generic (and
TABLE 5. CHANGES IN STUDENTS' SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AS IDENTIFIED FROM THE POST-FIELDWORK SURVEY
Social group Number of Good or
ｾ＠ __________________ｾｲ･ｳｰｯｮ＠ _____ｉｾｭｰｲｯｶ･､＠
Mapping group 52 41
Other students 50 33
Academic faculty, graduate 51 51
students and technical staff
Ｊｗｨ･ｲｾ＠ a response referred to "getting to know more people," this was not assumed to indicate good or improved relationships, unless explicitly
stated.
305
transferable) outcomes (typically nongeologic!nonacademic) that
are not generally assessed a'i part of learning, and in particular the
affective outcomes likely to influence future field experiences.
Learning outcomes were achieved in the affective, cognitive,
and psychomotor domains, although students were assessed only
on the la'it two. This is common practice within geoscience (and
science in general), and reflects not only the relative difficulty of
measuring outcomes based in emotion (Novak, 1979; Picard et
aI., 2004; Pyle, this volume), but also the "traditional" positivist
view that science should concern facts rather than feelings (Alsop
and Watts, 2(03).
Geologic/Academic Outcomes
Coping with uncertainty can be difficult in situations where
motivation is driven by perfonnance (i.e., extrinsic). It is natural
to want to reduce or overcome feelings of uncertainty (Deci and
Ryan, 1985; Bar-An an et aI., 2(09). and this was well reflected
in the students' concern over the variability between their maps.
The students had received their initial infonnation, thoughts,
and ideas from a variety of academic faculty, meaning that they
embarked on their independent mapping with a degree of uncer-
tainty about what was "correct:' These feelings of uncertainty
were reduced by the students viewing a series of maps created
on previous field courses by a single member of faculty (i.e., an
"expert"). Although slightly different, they could see that all of
these maps provided a valid explanation of the field area. Hence,
they were able to appreciate that, rather than seeking a "right
answer," they should instead focus on making sound observa-
tions, and using their evidence to justify their interpretations.
Interacting and sharing knowledge with a range of academics
also helped students to recognize the variability of opinion and
practice that exists within the "expert" community, and thus to
accept uncertainty as an inherent characteristic of geology.
"J think, looking at his [faculty member] maps, it's like-he's done
them slightly different each time he's come out, and if I were to take
an average of his [maps] .... [T]he main part of what I've done isn't that
dissimilar to what he's done. And, you know, from the average of his
[maps] I'm thinking 'well 1 can't be that far off.'"
"People could have told us [there was no right answer], but we wouldn't
have taken it on board."
Change In relationship
Unchanged Declined Other significant change N
______-n________Ｍｮｾ＠
e 0 Some conflict/differences 01 6
opinion
2 0 Got to know more people* 22
0 0 Increased confidence to 12
approach
306 Stokes and Boyle
This ability to cope with uncertainty i<: an important out-
come from the learning experience, since the complex and vari-
able nature of "real" geologic data requires expert geoscientists
to become highly skilled in subjective interpretation (Raab and
Brosch, 1996; FrOOeman, 2003). Further, the sense of achieve-
ment and satisfaction felt by students reflected the value attached
to the learning outcomes. and hence likely attitudes to future field-
work (Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Rozell and Gardner, 2000).
"It is satisfying at the end of the day when you look at your map and
you think 'I did that.'"
The students also recognized the value of the field course in
enabling them to Jearn, develop, and apply a range offield-related
or subject-specific skills and competencies. They demonstrated
significantly increased self-efficacy in relation to a range of cog-
nitive and psychomotor tasks, and showed a clear appreciation of
the value of geologic mapping both to their overall learning, and
in terms offuture careers.
"It's vital for geology."
"For most jobs in geology you need to be able to do field work ...
you've got to be able to make a geologic map of an area."
Geologic environments are characterized by heterogeneity
and gaps in evidence (BrOOaric and Gahegan, 2001), and one
of the greatest challenges faced by geoscientists is learning to
cope with the uncertainty that is inherent in geologic inquiry.
The incompleteness of fie.Jd exposure and the subjective nature
of observation mean that, even when expert geologists work
together, there will be variability within their interpretations
(BrOOaric and Gahegan, 200 I). In many respects it is this willing-
ness to accept ambiguity that distinguisnes geology, and geologic
reasoning, from other scientific disciplines (Ault, 1998).
NongeologiclNonacademic Outcomes
Students appeared less explicitly aware of the impact of the
fieldwork on their personal and social development. Indeed, wnen
asked to provide a free-text response to the question "what skills
have you learnt or developed during this fieldtripT only seven
out of 48 responses referred to some kind of personal skill (e.g.,
confidence), and only three specified social skills or teanlwork-
despite demonstrating improved social relationships with both
their peers and with faculty/staff. Skills such as working indepen-
dently, planning and managing time, and risk-awareness, were
not mentioned, even though the sludents showed clear evidence
of possessing these abilities. These more generic outcomes are
highly valued by employers (Penn, 200 I; Gedye and Chalkley,
2006) and form part of the skills portfolio required for a student
graduating from a UK geoscience progranl (QAA, 2007). The
reasons why these were not recognized by the students as out-
comes from their fieldwork are unclear. It may reflect a greater
perceived value in outcomes that are assessed (I.e., that will coo-
tribute toward their final grades) and thus performance goals, or,
alternatively, the students may simply not be conscious of hav-
ing acquired these important skills. Either way, it is important
that student;.<; are made aware of the significance of these skills
in terms of their academic and wider professional development.
Students' improved self-confidence in geologic mapping was
the most significant affective outcome, and it occurred mainly in
response to improvements in the students' abilitie..<; to work inde-
pendently, and to cope with the uncertain nature of geologic data.
As mentioned previously, many students were initially uncom-
fortable with differences that arose between individual maps as a
result of working independently, but by the end of the field course
this discomfort had largely reduced.
"I'd feel more comfortable if [group members] had the same sort of
thing because it would tell me that I'm right."
"I mean, if you look among ... the variation amongst. . .1 mean just, even
us three [mapping group]. on our maps, it's a lot...and then amongst
the whole group, it's even more."
In many respects, these nongeologic and nonacademic out-
comes might be considered more significant than subject-specific
or academic skills, since these will find application in a mucn
broader range of contexts and careers. The important thing, how-
ever, is that successful outcomes were clearly achieved in all
three learning domains. Gains in the cognitive and psychomotor
domains are reflected in enhanced reasoning skills and practi-
cal abilities, while the overcoming of negative feeling and the
attribution of value to the learning outcomes reflected a positive
impact on the affective domain. These outcomes will influence
students attitudes and feelings toward their subsequent fieldwork
activities, and hence their approaches to future learning.
DISCUSSION
[LJeaming involves moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar, tra-
versing the emotional quagmire of success, self-doubt, challenge, and
classroom identity.
ｾａｬｳｯｰ＠ and Watts (2003, p. 1043)
This study aims to enhance understanding of the learning
processes operating during residential fieldwork by identifying
factors lilcely to prompt affective responses in students learning
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
geologic mapping, and exploring the impact of affect on learn-
ing outcomes. The quantitative data provide general support for
the hypothesis that residential fieldwork does prompt positive
affective responses. These are desirable because they promote
deep approaches to learning (the intention to understand) and
improved performance (e.g., Biggs, 2003; Silvia, 2(08). Figure 3
shows that positive feeling toward the overall field experience
became enhanced as a result of the field course, but the findings
in relation to specific aspects of the fieldwork were less conclu-
sive (Tables 2 and 3). in fact, in contrast to Boyle et aL (2007),
significant changes in feelings were rarely identified. It is inter-
esting to note that geologic mapping was not represented in the
nmge of residential field experiences contributing to Boyle et al.'s
data set, and this apparent lack of enhancement in positive affect
may be reflective of students' feelings toward mapping as a spe-
cific learning task, rather than fieldwork in generaL Nonetheless,
the overall positive nature of responses both before and after the
field course is encouraging.
Clearer insight into the a.,pects of the field course that
prompt affective responses is provided by the qualitative data.
We found factors relating to the presage, process, and product
stages of learning (Fig. 4) to influence, and be influenced by, the
students' affective states both directly in terms of their feelings
and emotions, and indirectly in terms of their levels of motiva-
tion and confidence. At the presage, positive feelings were most
commonly encountered in relation to student characteristics (e.g.,
prior experiences, expectations), fieldwork in general (both as a
learning activity and environment), the geographical setting of
the field course, the social context of learning (working collab-
oratively), and extracurricular social and cultural activities. These
findings concur broadly with the quantitative data, particularly in
relation to perceptions of fieldwork and collaborative learning.
Negative feelings were encountered most frequently in rela-
tion to geologic mapping as an activity, meeting physical chal-
lenges, achieving academically, the social context of learning
(working independently), and logistical factors such as weather,
accommodation, and lack of sleep. Although implied in part from
the quantitative data, these findings provide a clearer indication
of the factors likely to contribute to pre-field course anxiety.
The attitude of the students toward geologic mapping is perhaps
unsurprising-it is difficult, and independent project work (for
which this field course provides the training) is the hardest of all
field activities. This difficulty was reflected in the students' com-
ments about mapping itself and their abilities to succeed, many
(but not all) of which implied a desire to perform well rather than
achieve mastery of skills (Ames and Archer, 1988).
These negative feelings decreased as the students engaged
with the learning process. The faculty-led introductory period
helped to reduce initial barriers to engagement (Orion and Hof-
stein, 1994), and feelings toward the physical and academic
a<;pects of the field course improved as the students gained exper-
tise and confidence through participation in active and social
learning environments. These environments provided the sensory
inputs necessary for emotional engagement with the learning
307
task (e.g., by increasing interest levels and hence motivation),
along with the physical, mental, and emotional experiences that
drive the learning process (Fig. 1). The nature of learning activity
seemed likely to encourage a deep rather than a surface approach
to learning (Table I), and this was further reflected in the stu-
dents' affective responses and motivation levels.
Overall, the learning process was found to be positive,
and the students successfully achieved outcomes in the cogni-
tive, affective, and psychomotor domains (Fig. 4). Despite this,
many appeared to lack recognition of the value and importance
of generic skills. It may be that the acquisition of these skills
simply needs to be made more explicit (Andrews et al., 2(03), or
they may recognize that they have the skills, but be unaware of
the relevance to their wider personal and professional develop-
ment-and this awareness may only increase as they come to
plan their independent project. This has important implications
for employment, since students may underrepresent important
skills and abilities if they do not fully recognize their value.
A good example is leadership skills. In business and industry,
leadership competencies are typically developed using outward-
bound or adventure-style courses (Hattie et al., 1997), yet such
skills can be successfully developed through geoscience field-
work, especially field mapping training where students are prob-
lem solving in difficult terrain.
Wider Implications
This study has identified factors prompting positive and neg-
ative affective responses in relation to a specific field experience.
Where identified, the overall change in affect resulting from this
field experience was positive, although the trajectory of change
was not straightforward. Rather, it resulted from a complex inter-
play between both positive and negative feelings and emotions
linked to a wide range of academic and nonacademic factors.
Future studies of this type might benefit from a finer-grained
approach, employing more sensitive data collection and analysis
techniques such that critical interactions and relationships can be
identified. An important finding from this study, however, is that
the factors prompting affective responses varied between indi-
vidual students, and also over time.
Some of the factors identified in this study may be com-
mon to all residential fieldwork, and further research is needed to
confion whether this is the case. Others are likely to be specific
to this particular experience, e.g., the nature of the learning task,
the students' prior experiences, and the social and cultural activi-
ties. We would therefore expect the factors influencing learning
to vary between field courses, along with the extent to which they
can be "controlled" (e.g., field activities or locations can be eas-
ily adapted to increase student engagement or interest, unlike the
weather!). The likelihood of creating a field experience in which
every student experiences only positive feelings and emotions is
low: there will always be aspects of fieldwork to which at least
some students respond negatively, and which, by implication,
may hinder or reduce their learning. However, negative affective
308 Stokes and Boyle
responses may not be altogether undesirable. While high levels
of anxiety can hinder both motivation and achievement, and thus
encourage a surface approach to learning, moderate levels have
been found to motivate learning and performance in assessment
(Cassady and Johnson, 2002). Further, the apparent ability of
mood to influence ways of thinking and information process-
ing (e.g., Ashby et aL, 1999; Isen, 2000; Forgas, 2001; Gasper
and Clore, 2002; Clore and Schnall, 2005; Schnall et al., 2008)
means that, in some cases, a positive state of mind may impede
rather than promote learning, depending on the requirements of
the task. Hence, the relationship between affective response and
approach to learning is perhaps less straightforward than it may
appear and therefore merits further investigation, particularly into
the role of affective constructs such as motivation and attitudes in
fieldwork (Glynn and Koballa, 2006; Koballa and Glynn, 2007).
Knowledge from disciplines such as neuroscience, psychology,
and cognitive science can contribute greatly to our understanding
of affect and its influence on student learning in fieldwork (and
geoscience more generally), and we have much to gain by col-
laborating with such disciplines in future research.
The extent to which social and cultural factors influenced the
students' experience is a particularly important finding from this
study. These were highly valued as extracurricular activities and
acted as motivators for learning and as the basis for "memorable
episodes" (Mackenzie and White, 1982; Nundy, 1999). While
the contribution of these factors to the final learning outcomes is
unclear, they were significant in generating the positive affective
responses associated with increased motivation, a deep approach
to learning, and ultimately to the successful achievement of learn-
ing outcomes. Our findings also identify significant improve-
ments in the quality of social relationships-a further predicator
of motivation CRyan and Deci, 2000). However, while it is clear
that fieldwork can have significant social benefits (e.g., Crompton
and Sellar, 1981; Fuller et aI., 2006), in practice social bonding
does not always occur (Nairn et aI., 2000), and hence these ben-
efits cannot be assumed. Neither can we assume that active par-
ticipation in fieldwork is sufficient to generate desired learning
outcomes. As we have demonstrated, some students have a clear
preference for other, more passive learning environments, and
this will influence their attitudes and approach to fieldwork. So,
although the field provides an unparalleled opportunity to inter-
act with geology and contextualize knowledge in an authentic
setting, its apparent power as a learning environment may not be
experienced by all students. This has important implications for
the design of residential field courses, particularly in the case of
nonmajors whose prior experiences and perceptions of the value
of fieldwork may vary more widely than those reported here.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has shown that fieldwork generates a range of
atlective responses in students that can impact on their learning.
Ultimately, learning is an experience unique to individuals, and
we should not expect to identify "straightforward monotone rela-
tionships" between affect and cognition (Snow et al., 1996) that
will provide a recipe for "effective" fieldwork. Effective learning
in the field will never simply result from favorable weather con-
ditions, outstanding exposure, or a meticulously planned activity.
However, identifying those aspects of fieldwork most likely to
influence students' affective responses, and understanding their
impact upon attitudes and approaches to learning, should facili-
tate the development of field activities that generate effective
learning outcomes in all three domains.
Geoscientists have always believed there to be something
uniquely valuable about the field learning experience, but until
fairly recently much of the evidence used to support this assump-
tion has been anecdotal. The findings from this and other recent
investigations provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness
of fieldwork as a learning experience and shed new light on the
factors that can influence the learning process. Such evidence is
vital for the future development of fieldwork and for its contin-
ued inclusion on the undergraduate geoscience curriculum. Fur-
ther, geoscience students need to be made aware of their sublimi-
nal acquisition during fieldwork of valued generic employability
skills such as leadership.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful thanks go to Kirsty Magnier for help with data col-
lection and analysis, and to all the students and faculty who
participated and cooperated in this study. Ruth Weaver, Eric
Pyle, and two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their help-
ful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
REFERENCES CITED
Alsop, S., and Watts, M., 2000, Facts and feelings: Exploiting the affective
domain in the learning of physics: Physics Education, v. 35, p. 132-138,
doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/35/2/31 I.
Alsop, S .• and Watts, M., 2003, Science education and affect: International
Journal of Science Education, v. 25, p. 1043-1047, doi: 10.10801
0950069032000052180.
Ames, c., and Archer. J., 1988, Achievement goals in the classroom: Students'
learning strategies and motivation processes: Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, v. SO, p. 260-267, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260.
Andrews, J., Kneale, P., Sougne1" W., Stewart, M., and Stott, T., 2003, Carry-
ing out pedagogic research into (he constructive alignment of fieldwork:
Planet, Special Edition 5. p. 51-52, http://www.gees.ac.uk/puhs/planet/
pse5back.pdf (acc.essed August 2008).
Ashby, EG., lsen, AM., and Turken, U., 1999, A neuropsychological theory
of positive affect and its influence on cognition: Psychological Review,
v. 106, p. 529-550, doi: 1O.1037/oo33-295X.I06.3.529.
Ault, C.R., 1998, Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity
of ambiguity: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 35, p. 189-
212, doi: 1O.1002/(SICl) I 098-2736(199802)3 5:2<1 89::AID-TEA8>3.0
.CO;2-0.
Bandura, A, 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cogni-
tive Theory: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 544 p.
Bandura, A. 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control: New York, Free-
man, 604 p.
Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T.D .. and Gilbert, D.T., 2009, The feeling of uncertainty
intensifies affective reactions: Emotion, v. 9, p. 123-127, doi: 10.1037/
aOO14607.
Beard, C., and Wilson, J.P., 2005, Ingredients for effective learning: The
learning combination lock, in Hartley, P., Woods, A, and Pill, M., eds.,
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education: New Approaches for Improv-
ing Student Leaming: London and New York, Routledge, p. 3-15.
Biggs, LB., 2003, Tcaching for Quality Leaming at University (2nd cd.): Buck-
ingham, SRHE and Open University Press, 272 p.
Bloom, B.S., 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of
Educational Goals-Handbook I: Cognitive Domain: New York, McKay,
207p.
Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, e., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner,
A., Wurthmann, S., and Conchie, S., 2007, Fieldwork is good: The stu-
dent perception and the affective domain: Jonrnal of Geography in Higher
Education, v. 31, p. 299-317. doi: 10.1080/03098260601063628.
Boyle, A.P., Ryan, P., and Stokes, A., 2009, this volume, External drivers for
changing fieldwork practices and provision in the UK and Ireland, ill
Whitmeyer, S.1., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.1., cds., Field Geology Educa-
tion: Historical Perspectives and Modem Approaches: Geological Society
of America Special Paper 461. doi: 10.113012009.2461(24).
Bracken, L., and Mawdsley, E., 2()()4, 'Muddy glee': Rounding out the picture
of women and physical geography fieldwork: Area, v. 36, p. 280--286, doi:
10.11 I I/j.0004-0894.2()()4.00225.x.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R., 1999, How People Leam:
Brain, Mind, Experience and School: Washington, D.e., National Acad-
emy Press, 319 p.
Breen, R.L., 2006, A practical guide to focus-group researeh: Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, v. 30, p. 463-475, doi: 10.1080/03098260600927575.
Breen, R., and Lindsay, R., 1999, Academic research and student moti-
vation: Studies in Higher Education, v. 24, p. 75-93, doi: 10.10801
030750799123313801 58.
Brodanc, B., and Gahegan, M., 2001, Learning geoscientific categories ill situ:
Implications for geographic knowledge representation, in Proceedings of
the 9th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Infor-
mation Systems: New York, ACM Press, p. 130--135, available at http://
doi.acm.org/IO.l145/512161.5 12190 (accessed 17 August 2(09).
Butler, R., 2008, Teaching Geoscience through Fieldwork: Plymouth, UK,
Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences (GEES), 56 p., http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/
guides/fw/fwgeosci.pdf (accessed December 2008).
Cahill, L., and McGaugh, J.L., 1998, Mechanisms of emotional arousal and
lasting declarative memory: Trends in Neurosciences, v. 21, p. 294--299,
doi: 10. 101 6!SO I 66-2236(97)0 1214-9.
Cassady, J.e., and Johnson, R.E., 2002, Cognitive test anxiety and academic
performance: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 27, p. 270--295,
doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.l094.
Clore, G.L., and Schnall, S., 2005, The influence of affect on attitude, in Albar-
racin, D., Johnson, B.T., and Zanna, M.P.. eds., The Handbook of Attitudes:
Mahwah, New Jersey, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 437-489.
Clore, G.L., Wyer, R.S., Dienes, B., Gasper, K., Gohm, c., and Isbell. L., 2001,
Affective feelings as feedback: Some cognitive consequences, in Martin.
L.L., and Clore. G.L., cds .. Theories of Mood and Cognition: Mahwah,
New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 27--62.
Cohen, L., Manion, L.. and Morrison, K, 2000, Research Methods in Educa-
tion (5th ed.): New York, Routledge Falmer, 446 p.
Crompton, J.L., and Sellar, c., [981, Do outdoor education experiences con-
tribute to positive development in the affective domain?: The Journal of
Environmental Education, v. 12. p. 21-30.
Crossman, L 2007, The rolc of relationships and emotions in student percep-
tions of learning and assessment: Higher Education Research & Develop-
ment, v. 26, p. 313-327, doi: 10.1080/07294360701494328.
Dave, R.H., 1970, Psychomotor levels, in Annstrong, R.J., ed., Developing and
Writing Behavioural Obje<:tives: Tucson. Arizona, Educational Innova-
tors Press, p. 33-34.
Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination
in Human Behaviour: New York, Plenum Press, 371 p.
Eiss, A.E, and Harbeck. M.B., 1969, Leaming Objectives in the Affective
Domain: Washington, D.C., National Science Teachers Association, 42 p.
Elkins, J.T, and Elkins, N.M.L., 2007, Teaching geology in the field: Signifi-
cant geoscience concept gains in entirely field-based introductory geol-
ogy courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55. p. 126-132.
Emwistle, N., 1987, A model of the teaching-learning process, in Richardson,
J.T.E., Eysenck, M.W., and Warren Piper, D., eds., Studem Leaming.
Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology: Millon Keynes, UK,
Open University Press and SRHE, p. 13-28.
309
Entwistle, N., and Ramsden, P., 1983, Understanding Student Leaming: Lon-
don, Croom Helm. 248 p.
Entwistle, N., and Smith, e., 2002, Personal understanding and target under-
standing: Mapping influences on the outcomes of leaming: British
Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 72, p. 321-342, doi: 10.13481
000709902320634528.
Fletcher, S., and Dodds. W., 2()()4, Dipping toes in the water: An international sur-
vey of residential fieldwork within ICM degree course curricula, in Green,
D.R., Angus, S., Bailey, D.. Eleveld, M., Furmanczyk, K., Hansom, J.,
Longhom, R.A., Paskoff, R., Psuty, N.P., Randall, R., Ritchie, W., Salman,
A., Taussik, J., Pinto, FT, and Wensink, H., eds., Proceedings of the 7th
International Symposium: Delivering Sustainable Coasts: Conne.:ting Sci-
ence and Policy: Aberdeen, UK, Cambridge Publications, p. 305-309.
Forgas, J.P., 2001, The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative theory of
mood effects on cognition and ｪｵ､ｧｭ･ｮｬｾＬ＠ ill Martin, L.L., and Clore.
G.L., eds., Theories of Mood and Cognition: Mahwah. New Jersey, Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, p. 27--62.
Frodeman, R., 2()()3, Geo-Logic: Albany, New York, State University of New
York Press, 184 p.
Fuller, I., Edmondson, S., France, D., Higgitt, D., and Ratinen, I., 2()()6, Interna-
tional perspectives on the effectiveness of geography fieldwork for leam-
ing: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 30, p. 89-101, doi:
1O.1080/030982605()()499667.
Gagne, R.M., and White, R.T, 1978, Memory suuctures and leaming out-
comes: Review of Educational Research, v. 48, p. 187-222.
Gasper. K., and Clore, G.L., 2002, Attending to the big picture: Mood and
global versus local processing of visual information: Psychological Sci-
ence. v. 13, p. 34--40, doi: 10.11 ll!l 467-9280.()()406.
Gedye, S., and Chalkley, B., 2006, Employability within Geography, Earth
and Environmental Sciences: http://www.gees.ac.uklpubs/guidcs/empl
geesemployability.pdf (accessed July 2008).
Glynn, S.M., and Koballa, T.R., 2006, Motivation to leam in college science,
in Mintzes, U., and Leonard. W.H., eds., Handbook of College Science
Teaching: Arlington, Virginia, National Science Teachers Association
Press, p. 25-32.
Gold, P.W., 2005, The neurobiology of stress and its relevance to psychother-
apy: Clinical Neuroscience Research, v. 87, p. 201-211.
Golledge, R.G., Marsh, M., and Battersby, S., 2008, Matching geospatial con-
cepts with geographic educational needs: Geographical Research, v. 46,
p. 85-98, doi: 10.1 I IlIj.l745-5871.2007.()()494.x.
Hall, T., Healey, M., and Harrison, M., 2004, Fieldwork and disabled students:
Discourses of exclusion and inclusion: Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, v. 28, p. 255-280, doi: 10.1080/0309826042000242495.
Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., Neill, J.T, and Richards, G.E., 1997, Adventure educa-
tion and Outward Bound: Out-of-c1ass experiences that make a lasting
difference: Review of Educational Research, v. 67, p. 43-87.
Hill, J., and Woodland. W., 2002, An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promot-
ing deep Icaming: A preliminary investigation: Assessment and Evalua-
tion, v. 27, p. 539-555, doi: 10.108010260293022000020309.
Hsieh, H.-E, and Shannon, S.E., 2005, Three approaches to qualitative con-
tent analysis: Qualitative Health Research, v. IS, p. 1277-1288, doi:
10.1177/1049732305276687.
lou;!, L.A., 1989, What research says to the educator. Part Two: Environmental
education and the affcctive domain: The Journal of Environmental Educa-
tion, v. 20. p. 6-13.
Isen, A.M., 2000, Positive affect and decision making, in Lewis, M., and
Haviland, J., eds., Handbook of Emotions: New York, Guildford Press,
p. 417--435.
Ishikawa_ T, and Kastens, K., 2005, Why some students have trouble with maps
and other spatial representations: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53,
p.184-197.
Kelso, P.R., and Brown, L.M., 2009, this volume, Integration of field expe-
riences in a project-based geoscience curriculum, in Whitmeyer. S.1.,
Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.1., cds., Field Geology Education: Historical
Perspectives and Modem Approaches: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 461, doi: 1O.1130/2()()9.2461(06).
Kempa, R.F, and Orion, N., 19%, Students' perception of co-operative leaming
in earth science fieldwork: Research in Science and Technological Educa-
tion, v. 14, p. 33--41.
Kent, M., Gilbertson, D.o., and Hunt, e.0., 1997, Fieldwork in geography
teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches: Journal
- - - -.....- ---
.. .. ｾＭＮ＠
310 Stokes and Boyle
of Geography in Higher Education, v. 21, p. 313-332, doi: 10.10801
03098269708725439.
Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1984, Enhancement of student values, interests
and attitudes in earth science through a field-orientated approach: Journal
of Geological Education, v. 32, p. 299-305.
Kern, E.L., and Carpenter, J.R., 1986, Effect of field activities on student learn-
ing: Journal of Geological Education, v. 34, p. 180--183.
Kinnear, P., and Gray, C., 2000, SPSS for Windows Made Simple: Release 10:
Hove, UK, Psychology Press, 432 p.
Koballa, T.R., and Glynn, S.M., 2007, Attitudinal and motivational constructs
in science learning, in Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N., eds., Handbook for
Research in Science Education: Mahwah. New Jersey, Erlbaum, p. 75-102.
Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning
and Development: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. 256 p.
KratwohL D.R., Bloom. B.S., and Masia, B.B., 1964, Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals-Handbook II: Affec-
tive Domain: New York, McKay, 196 p.
Lai, KC., 1999, Freedom to learn: A study of the experiences of secondary
school teachers and students in a geography field trip: International
Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, v. 8, p. 239-
255, doi: 10.1080/10382049908667614.
Lave. J., and Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Par-
ticipation: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge UniVersity Press, 138 p.
Libarkin, LC., and Kurdziel, J.P., 2002a, Research methodologies in science
education: The qualitative-quantitative debate: Journal of Geoscience
Education, v. 50, p. 78-86.
Libarkin, J.e., and Kurdziel, JP., 2002b, Research methodologies in science educa-
tion: Qualitative data: J oumal of Groseience Education, v. 50, p. 195-200.
Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G., 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry: Beverly Hills, Cali-
fornia, Sage Publishing. 416 p.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., and Simons, R, 2002, Univernity students' perceptions
of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for
theory and practice: Studies in Higher Education, v. 27, p. 27-52, doi:
10.1080/03075070120099359.
Lnnergan, N., and Andresen, L. W., 1988, Field-based education: Some theo-
retical comiderations: Higher Education Research and Development, v. 7,
p. 63-77, doi: 10.1080/0729436880070106.
Mackenzie, A.A.. and White, RT., 1982, Fieldwork in geography and long-
term memory structures: American Educational Research Journal, v, 19,
p. 623--{)32.
Maguire, S., 1998. Gender differences in attitudes to undergraduate fieldwork:
Area. v. 30, p. 207-214, doi: 10.1l11/j.l475-4762.1998.tbOOO65.x.
Manner, B.M., 1995, Field studies benefit students and teachers: Journal of
Geological Education. v. 43, p. 128-131.
Marques, L., Praia, J.• and Kempa. R, 2003, A study of students' perceptions
of the organisation and effectiveness of fieldwork in earth sciences educa-
tion: Research in Science and Technological Education, v. 21, p. 265-
278, doi: 10.1080/0263514032000127275.
Marshall, J.S., Gardner, T.W., Protli, M., and Nourse, J.A., 2009, this volume,
International geosciences field research with undergraduate students:
Three models for experiential learning projects investigating active tec-
tonics of the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica, in Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk,
D.W., and Pyle, E.1., eds., Field Geology Education: Historical Pernpec-
tives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society of America Special
Paper 461, doi: 10.113012009.2461(08).
Marton, E, and Saljo, R., 1976, On qualitative differences in learning:
I-Outcomes and processes: The British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy. v. 46, p. 4--11.
May, C.L., Eaton, L.S., and Whitme.yer, S .J., 2009, this volume, Integrating stu-
dent-led research in fluvial geomorphology into traditional field courses:
A case study from ｊ｡ｭ･ｾ＠ Madison University's field course in Ireland, in
Whitmeyer, S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.L, eds., Field Geology Educa-
tion: Historical Perspectives and Modern Approaches: Geological Society
of America Special Paper 461. doi: 1O.1130/2009.2461(7).
Meredith, J.E., Fortner, R.W., and Mullins, G.W.• 1997, Model of affective
learning for nonformal science education facilities: Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, v. 34, p. 805-818, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736
(I 997 1O)34:8<805::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Miles, M .• and Huberman, M.A., 1984, Qualitative Data Analysis: Beverly
Hills, California, Sage Publications, 352 p.
Millar, M.G., and Millar, K.U., 1996, The ･ｦ｣ｴｾ＠ of direct and indirect expe-
rience on affective and cognitive responses and the attitude-behaviour
relation: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 32, p. 561-579,
doi: 1O.1006/jesp.1996.0025.
Mondlane, S., and Mapani, B., 2002, The role of fieldwork in undergraduate
geoscience education: Approaches and constraints: Teaching Earth Sci-
ences, v. 27, p. 129-131.
Morrison, KR.R. 1993, Planning and Accomplishing School-Centred Evalua-
tion: Norfolk, UK, Peter Francis Publishers, 224 p.
Murphy, P.K, and Alexander, P.A., 2000, A motivated exploration of motiva-
tion terminology: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 25, p. 3-53,
doi: 1O.1006/ceps.1999.10l9.
Nairn, K, 1996, Parties on geography fieldtrips: Embodied fieldwork?: New
Zealand Women's Studies Journal, v. 12, p. 86-97.
Nairn, K., 2003, What has the geography of sleeping arrangements got to do
with the gc{)graphy of our teaching spaces?: Gender, Place and Culture,
v. 10, p. 67-81. doi: 10.108010966369032000052667.
Nairn, K, Higgitt, 0 .. and Vanneste, D., 2000, International perspectives on
field courses: Journal of Geography in Higher Education, v. 24, p. 246-
254, doi: 10.1 0801713677382.
Novak:. J.D., 1979, Implications for teaching of research on learning, in Rowe,
M.B., ed., What Research Says to the Science Teacher: Washington, D.C.,
National Science Teachers Association, p. 68-79.
Nundy, S., 1999, The fieldwork effect: The role and impact of fieldwork in the
Upper Primary School: International Research in Geographical and Envi-
ronmental Education, v. 8, p. 190-198, doi: 10.1080/10382049908667608.
Orion, N., and Hofstein, A., 1994, Factors that influence learning during a sci-
entific field trip in a natural envirnnment: Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, v. 31, p. 1097-1119, doi: 1O.1002/tea.3660311005.
Orion, N., Ben-Chaim, D., and Kali, Y, 1997, Relationship between earth-sci-
ence education and spatial visualization: Journal of Geoscience Educa-
tion,v.45,p.129-132.
Patton, M.Q., 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.):
Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications, 532 p.
Penn, I., 2001, What does the employer want? A British Geological Survey
perspective on graduate employability: Planet. Special Edition I, p. 4--5,
http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/planetJp2lip.pdf (accessed July 2008).
Perrier, E, and Nsengiyumva, J.-B., 2003, Active science as a contribution to
the trauma recovery process: Preliminary indications with orphans for the
1994 genocide in Rwanda: International Journal of Science Education,
v. 25. p. 1111-1128, doi: 10.108010950069032000052225.
Petcovic, H.L., and Libarkin, J.e., 2007, Research in science education:
The expert-novice continuum: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 55,
p.333-339.
Picard, R.W., Papert, S., Bender, W.. Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D.,
Machover, T., Resnick, M., Roy, D., and Strohecker, C., 2004, Affective
learning-A manifesto: BT Technology Journal, v. 22, p. 253--269, doi:
10. I 0231B:BTTJ.0000047603.37042.33.
Pintrich, P.R .. 2000, An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in moti-
vational terminology, theory, and research: Contemporary Educational
Psychology, v. 25, p. 92-104, doi: 1O.l 006/ceps.1999.10 17.
Pintrich, P.R., and De Groot, E. v., 1990, Motivational and self-regulated learn-
ing components of classroom academic performance: Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, v. 82, p. 33--40, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.
Pintrich, P.R, Marx, RW., and Boyle, R.A., 1993, Beyond cold conceptual
change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors
in the process of conceptual change: Review of Educational Research,
v. 63, p. 167-199.
Pyle, E.J .. 2009, this volume, The evaluation of field course experiences: A
framework for development, improvement, and reporting, in Whitmeyer,
S.J., Mogk, D.W., and Pyle, E.J., cds., Field Ge.ology Education: Histori-
cal Pernpectives and Modem Approaches: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 461, doi: 10.113012009.2461 (26).
QAA, 2007, Benchmark Statement for Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences,
and Environmental Studies: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructurel
benchmarklstatementslearthsciences.pdf (accessed July 2008).
Raab, T., and Brosch, F.1., 1996, Uncertainty, subjectivity, experience: A
comparative pilot study: Engineering Geology, v. 44, p. 129-145. doi:
1O.1016/S0013-7952(96)00065-8.
Raab, T., and Frodeman, R., 2002, What is it like to be a geologist? A phenom-
enology of geology and its epistemological implications: Philosophy and
Geography, v. 5, p. 69-81, doi: 10.1080/10903770120116840.
Rabiee, E, 2004. Focus-group interview and data analysis: The Proceedings
of the Nutrition Society, v. 63, p. 655--{)60, doi: lO.l079fPNS2004399.
 The undergraduate geoscience fieldwork experience
Rapp, O.N., Culpepper, S.A .. Kirkby, K., and Morin, P., 2007, Fostering stu-
dents' comprehension of topographic maps: Journal of Geoscience Edu-
cation, v. 55, p. 5-16.
Roberson, P.K., Shema, SJ., Mundfrom, OJ., and Holmes, T.M., 1995, Analy-
sis of paired Liken data: How to evaluate change and preference ques-
tions: Family Medicine, v. 27, p. 671-675.
Rozell, E.J., and Gardner, W.L., 2000, Cognitive, motivation, and affective pro-
cesses associated with computer-related petformance: A path analysis:
Computers in Human Behavior, v. 16, p. 199-222, doi: I0.1016/S0747
-5632(99)00054-0.
Ryan. R.M., and Deci, E.L., 20()(), Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being: The Ameri-
can Psychologist, v. 55, p. 68-78, doi: IO.l037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Schmitz, B., 2006, Advantages of studying processes in educational research:
Learning and Instruction, v. 16, p. 433--449, doi: 1O.1016/j.leaminstruc
.2006.09.004.
Schnall, S., Jaswal, VK., and Rowe, c., 2008, A hidden cost of happiness in
children: Developmental Science, v. 11. p. F25-BO, doi: 1O.1111/j.I467
-7687 .2008 .00709.x.
Silvia, P.J., 2008, Interest-The curious emotion: Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science. v. 17, p. 57-60, doi: 10.1 lll1j.1467-872J.2008.00548.x.
Sim6n, J.L., 2004, Superposed buckle folding in the eastern Therian Chain,
Spain: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 26, p. 1447-1464, doi: 10.1016/
j.jsg.2003.11.026.
Snow, RE., Como, L., and Jackson, D., 1996, Individual differences in affective
and conative functions, in Berliner, D.C., and Calfee, R.C., cds., Hand-
book of Educational Psychology: New York, Macmillan, p. 243-3 IO.
Snyder, K., 2003. Ropcs, poles, and space-Active leMlling in business educa-
tion: Active Learning in Higher Education, v. 4, p. 159-167, doi: 10.1177/
1469787403004002004.
Stokes, A .. 2008, What can social learning theory tell us about fieldwork?: Geo-
logical Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 40, no. 6, p. 365.
311
Storbeck, J., and Clore, G.L., 2005, With sadness comes accuracy; with hap-
piness, false memory: Mood and the false memory effect: Psychological
Science, v. 16, p. 785-791, doi: 10.1111 Ij. 1467-9280.2005.016 15.x.
Taber, K.S., 2000, Case studies and general izabili ty: Grounded theory and
research in science education: International Journal of Scicnce Education,
v. 22, p. 469-487, doi: 1O.1080/095006900289732.
Tal, R.T., 2001, incorporating field trips as science learning environment
cnrichment-An inteIpretive study: Learning Environments Research,
v. 4, p. 25-49, doi: IO.1023/A:1011454625413.
Tobin, K., 1998, Qualitative perceptions of learning envirorunents on the World
Wide Web: LearningEnvironmentsResearch. v.l,p. 139-162,doi: 10.I0231
A: 1009953715583.
Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M., 1991, Improving the quality of student learning:
The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on
learning outcomes: Higher Education, v. 22, p. 251-266, doi: lO.lO071
BFOO132290.
Turner, P., and Curran, A., 2006, Correlates between bioscience students'
experiences of higher education and the neurobiology of learning: BEE-j
(Bioscience Education e-Journal), v. 7, http://www.bioscience.heacademy
.ac.ukljournallvo17lBeej-7-5.htm (accessed July 2008).
Vygotsky, L.S .. 1978, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental
Processes: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 159 p.
Whang, P.A., and Hancock, G.R., 1994, Motivation and mathematics achieve-
ment: Comparisons between Asian-American and non-Asian students:
Contemporary Educational Psychology, v. 19, p. 302-322, doi: 10.1006/
ceps.1994.1023.
Zull, J.E .. 2002, The An of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Explor-
ing the Biology of Learning: Sterling, Virginia, Stylus Publishing, 263 p.
MANlJSCRII'r ACC.EPTED BY TIlE SOCIETY 5 MAY 2009
Printed in the USA