Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20

Download by: [University of Western Macedonia] Date: 09 June 2017, At: 05:47

Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Barriers To Biological Fieldwork: What ReallyPrevents Teaching Out of Doors?

Graham W. Scott, Margaret Boyd, Lisa Scott & Derek Colquhoun

To cite this article: Graham W. Scott, Margaret Boyd, Lisa Scott & Derek Colquhoun (2015)Barriers To Biological Fieldwork: What Really Prevents Teaching Out of Doors?, Journal ofBiological Education, 49:2, 165-178, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2014.914556

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.914556

Published online: 04 Jun 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 637

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Barriers To Biological Fieldwork: WhatReally Prevents Teaching Out of Doors?

Graham W. Scotta*, Margaret Boyda, Lisa Scottb and DerekColquhounaSchool of Biological, Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, Hull,UK; bUniversity of Hull, Scarborough Campus, Scarborough, UK

This paper considers a range of factors that may contribute to an unwillingness or inability of teachersto participate in the teaching of biology through fieldwork. Through a synthesis of the views of bothpre-service teachers in training and primary school teachers in practice we explore the relative impor-tance of a wide range of potential barriers and potential responses to them in the context of the widerliterature. We conclude that although fieldwork may be impeded by the interaction of a wide range ofindividual barriers, including an individual’s predisposition towards the outdoors, it is possible to groupinteracting barriers into two main areas: school culture and teacher confidence. It is also apparent thatbarriers may assume different levels of significance when considered in general terms rather than whenapplied to a particular context and that the significance of barriers may change through time. Encourag-ingly, we have also shown that in-service teachers have a willingness to overcome these barriers.

Keywords: Barriers to fieldwork; Ecology; Teacher confidence; Learning out of doors;School culture

Introduction

There is a recognition among teachers and researchers that fieldwork is an effective (andenjoyable) educational practice (e.g. Dillon and Dickie 2012; Dillon et al. 2006;Rickinson et al. 2004). There is also an understanding that if fieldwork is to be promotedthen the practice should be underpinned by an evidence base demonstrating its valueeffectively (Rickinson et al. 2004). However, in spite of a growing academic focus uponfieldwork as pedagogy there has been concern that as a practice it is declining (Barker2005; Reiss and Braund 2004; Tilling 2004), perhaps to the brink of extinction (Baker,Slingsby, and Tilling 2002). Encouragingly, in recent years O’Donnel, Morris, andWilson (2006) have suggested that in some areas levels of provision have stabilised, but

*Corresponding author. School of Biological, Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, University ofHull, Cottingham Rd, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Email: g.scott@hull.ac.uk

© 2014 Society of Biology

Journal of Biological Education, 2015Vol. 49, No. 2, 165–178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.914556

a halt in decline does not equate to a recovery. In one particular area, systematic biology,the implications of decline are such that the UK House of Lords Select Committee onScience and Technology put forward proposals to reverse what it saw as an ‘astonishinglack of awareness in Government, both of the importance of systematic biology and ofthe current state of decline in areas of systematic biology’ (House of Lords Select Com-mittee on Science and Technology 2008, Chapter 6.1). Although much systematic biologyis undertaken in a laboratory setting, the collection of specimens during fieldwork, and insome cases identification of specimens in the field, remains a key element of the disci-pline. The report clearly links fieldwork and systematic biology in stating that as part ofa strategy to strengthen systematic biology in the UK context ‘it is critically importantthat school children of all ages, starting with those in primary school, should be taughtabout the natural world and given opportunities to enjoy it first hand’ (Chapter 3.28, ouremphasis) The report concludes that ‘Field study trips and other practical exercises,which have served to introduce generations of children to the diversity of living organ-isms, should be encouraged as a means of engaging and stimulating young people (asfuture volunteers) to become involved in biological recording’ (Chapter 3.28).Efforts to improve the standing of fieldwork-based teaching and to enhance its practice

(amount and quality) can only take place if the barriers that have undoubtedly contributedto its demise are identified and countered. Rickinson et al. (2004) have stated that whilethere is a number of published works describing and decrying the decline of fieldworkthere is ‘considerably less published research into the factors (both real and perceived)that might help to explain such trends’ (42). They go on to assert that ‘it is crucial thatpolicy makers consider ways to tackle barriers that stand in the way of the provision ofeffective outdoor education’ (54).The range of possible barriers to fieldwork is considerable. Some authors have sug-

gested that the cost of fieldwork is the key barrier (e.g. Waite 2009), others have impli-cated variable and often inadequate pre-service and in-service teacher training (Kendallet al. 2006; Tilling and Dillon 2007), and others put forward lack of teacher confidence,ability and experience (Magntorn and Helldén 2006; Moseley, Reinke, and Bookout2002; Nundy, Dillon, and Dowd 2009; Tal and Morag 2009). Our own review of the lit-erature linked to primary school teaching has brought to light 11 reasons that are mostcommonly cited as barriers to fieldwork (see Table 1). It is unlikely, however, that thislist is exhaustive, or that a single barrier or combination of barriers is key in all contexts.In this paper we present data collected from 60 pre-service teachers about to undertake

training related to teaching through fieldwork, and data collected from a sample of 49practising primary school teachers. We explore barriers to teacher participation in field-work and consider ways by which they may be overcome.

Fieldwork

In this paper we define fieldwork as activities designed to enable children to learnabout the natural environment in an outdoor setting. We recognise that fieldwork ses-sions will often be integrated within an extended programme of activity that enableslearners to move between the classroom and the outdoors. Fieldwork sessions may be

166 G.W. Scott et al.

short (a few minutes or hours), taking place on or close to a school’s grounds; orthey may take the form of one or a number of consecutive days, perhaps including aresidential experience.

Methods

To understand teachers’ perceptions of barriers to fieldwork we have adopted a mixed meth-ods approach combining qualitative and quantitative analysis of data derived from writtenquestionnaires and from facilitated focus group discussions. The project conformed to BritishEducational Research Association ethical guidelines (BERA 2011) and had the approval ofthe relevant university ethics committees. Informed consent was obtained from all partici-pants, and all have had the opportunity to withdraw themselves and their data throughout theproject. Participating schools and teachers have been anonymised for the purposes of dataanalysis, presentation and dissemination. We use the term ‘students’ to refer to pre-serviceteachers in training, and the words ‘pupils’ and ‘children’ to refer to school-age learners.

Table 1. Teacher perceptions of the relative importance of potential barriers to fieldwork

Project participants Wider sample

Potential barrier T1 T2 T3 T4 T6 T7 Mean ± SD Rank Mean ± SD Rank

Lack of suitable equipment 4 3 4 5 4 2 3.7 ± 1.0 1 2.7 ± 1.1 2Lack of a suitable area for

outdoor learning2 1 3 5 2 4 2.8 ± 1.5 2 2.3 ± 1.0 =3

Costs (transport, admission fee,consumables)

4 2 2 2 2 4 2.7 ± 1.0 = 3 2.9 ± 0.9 1

Lack of teacher knowledgeabout the outdoor setting

4 1 2 3 4 2 2.7 ± 1.2 = 3 1.8 ± 0.9 11

Adult:child ratio 3 3 1 3 2 2 2.3 ± 0.8 = 5 2. 3 ± 0.8 6Lack of teacher confidence

teaching in an outdoorsetting

2 1 2 2 4 3 2.3 ± 1.0 = 5 1.7 ± 1.0 12

Concerns around risk 3 2 3 2 2 2 2.3 ± 0.5 =5 2.3 ± 0.7 7Class size 3 4 1 1 2 2 2.2 ± 1.2 8 2.0 ± 0.9 =9Timetable constraints 4 1 2 2 2 1 2.0 ± 1.1 = 9 2.3 ± 1.0 =3Risk assessment paperwork 2 2 1 2 3 2 2.0 ± 0.6 = 9 2.0 ± 0.9 =9The behaviour of children 1 1 2 1 2 2 1.5 ± 0.5 11 2.1 ± 0.9 8Assessment/inspection pressure 2.3 ± 0.9 5School culture 1.4 ± 0.6 13

Note: The table shows the degree to which teachers consider each potential barrier to be an actual bar-rier (see text for a explanation of the 1–5 scoring scale, but scores closer to 5 indicate greater barriers).A mean (± standard deviation) of the scores given by each teacher across all potential barriers is pre-sented, as are mean scores (± standard deviation) for each potential barrier. Data are presented individu-ally for T1–T4, T6 and T7, and potential barriers are tabulated in rank order of relative importance tothose teachers (derived from mean scores). Data collected from a wider sample of 41 teachers are alsosummarised (as a mean score ± standard deviation).

Barriers to Biological Fieldwork 167

Trainee Teachers’ Perceptions

As part of a wider project, 60 students at the University of Hull, all pre-service teacherscoming to the end of the second year of a 3 year undergraduate programme (BA PrimaryTeaching with Qualified Teacher Status), were asked to complete a short written question-naire about their attitudes towards fieldwork as a teaching practice. These students wereabout to undertake a field-based day trip designed to provide them with an experience offieldwork and to provide examples of activities that they might incorporate into their ownteaching. The trip involved small groups of students experiencing woodland, stream andupland habitats in the company of experienced fieldwork teachers. It is relevant to thisstudy that the students were asked to agree or disagree with two statements:

� I think of myself as an outdoor person.� It is important that children have the opportunity to learn outside of the classroom.

They were also asked to record on a scale of 1 (very) to 4 (not very) their response tothe following question:

� How valuable to your development as a teacher do you think the field day will be?

Finally, they were asked to answer the following open question:

� Why do you think the field day will/will not be valuable to your development as ateacher

An unpaired t-test was used to formally test the hypothesis that those pre-service teacherswith a self-declared affinity for the outdoors would view the experience as having morevalue than those who did not see themselves as outdoor people.

Practising Teachers’ Perceptions

To explore the views and experiences of in-service teachers, eight practising Year 5teachers (teaching 9–10-year-olds) (hereafter T1–T8) from Scarborough (two schools),Hornsea (one school) and Hull (five schools) (all in the north-east of England) wererecruited to a two-year project evaluating the incorporation of fieldwork into their teach-ing. One aim of this project is to enhance our understanding of barriers to field-basedteaching. It is important to note that only one of these teachers describes themselves asbeing an ‘ecologist/scientist’ and most of them were asked to take part in the project bytheir head teacher rather than volunteering. As a result, we have not inadvertently workedwith an atypical group of teachers who are already committed to, or experienced in, field-work. Before joining the project they were invited to complete a questionnaire to providethe project team with a better understanding of the context of their school and their prac-tice within it. The questionnaire also yielded information relevant to two key themes ofthe current paper. One section asked teachers to score the extent to which they consideredeach of 11 potential barriers to fieldwork (derived from a literature review and notablyfrom Rickinson et al. 2004 and the House of Commons Education and Skills Commit-tee’s Report (2005) ‘Education outside the classroom’) applied to their own context. The

168 G.W. Scott et al.

11 potential barriers are listed in Table 1, in which the responses of the six teachers whoelected to complete the questionnaire are reported. The following scale was used:

(1) Not a barrier(2) A barrier to the extent that careful consideration is necessary but not to the extent

that an activity would be prevented(3) A barrier, but one that can be easily overcome(4) A considerable barrier, extra support would be required to overcome it(5) Significant barrier and one which would prevent an activity taking place.

We then discussed the information they provided with the teachers at our first focusgroup meeting (see below) and developed a second questionnaire to which we added twomore potential barriers that the teachers agreed were important: pressures related toassessment targets/inspection, and school culture. The revised questionnaire was circu-lated by T1–T8 to their colleagues and 41 teachers responded. The data collected fromthis wider sample of teachers are also presented in Table 1.

Focus Group Discussions

The eight participating teachers, a stakeholder representing the Association of ScienceEducators (ASE), an academic stakeholder and the authors met for one day to hold con-current and consecutive discussions around biology/ecology fieldwork. The day beganwith a short presentation by GWS and one of the teachers, in which they outlined a pilotproject, which was presented as a template for the kind of fieldwork activity that wouldsubsequently be undertaken by each teacher as part of the wider project. Details of thepilot have been published elsewhere (Scott, Grassam, and Scott 2011; Scott et al. 2012).Two focus groups were then established: group A included four of the teachers (T1–T4),

two researchers (GWS and LJS) and the ASE stakeholder; and group B included four teach-ers T5–T8, two researchers (MB and DC) and the academic stakeholder. Guided by one ofthe research team in a facilitator role, the groups spent approximately one hour discussingeach of three topics:Discussion 1. The teachers were asked to consider the pilot study that had been pre-

sented to them and to identify the barriers that would prevent it (or a similar piece ofwork) being carried out in their own school context. (NB. One teacher who had beeninvolved in the pilot was asked to contribute barriers that he had anticipated before thepilot.) Each group facilitator was provided with a list of potential barriers based on a lit-erature review and asked to use these as prompts to refocus discussion, should that benecessary.Discussion 2. The teachers were asked to share with one another their experience of

fieldwork in the context of their current school.Discussion 3. The group discussed ways in which teachers might be better prepared to

overcome the barriers to fieldwork raised in discussion 1, both during their pre-servicetraining and in-service.Transcripts of the discussions were then subjected to thematic analysis by MB and

GWS.

Barriers to Biological Fieldwork 169

Results and Discussion

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions

Sixty students completed the questionnaire, 39 of them being self-declared ‘outdoor peo-ple’ and the remaining 21 stating that they were not. This is potentially significant; it mayconfirm that even at this early stage in their training a third of teachers may not be recep-tive to fieldwork as a potential pedagogy. Maynard et al. (2013) describe a link betweenenthusiasm for being out of doors and the perception of teachers that learning out of doorsis valuable. Similarly, Waite (2007) noted that teachers who described positive memoriesof outdoor experiences as children were more likely to continue to have an affinity withthe natural world as adults. Bixler et al. (2002) suggest that such teachers may adopt par-ticular pedagogic approaches as a result, and Ewart et al. (2005) made the case that earlyexperiences of outdoor activity have a bearing upon adult attitudes towards the environ-ment. One might therefore suppose that those pre-service teachers with a limited affinityfor the outdoors may value outdoor experiences to a lesser degree and by extension maysee less value in outdoor learning. However, all of our respondents agreed with the state-ment that ‘it is important that children have the opportunity to learn outside of the class-room’. Perhaps this reflects preparation of the students by their tutors before the trip.In spite of their agreement that learning out of doors was valuable to children, it is evi-

dent from Figure 1 that before the exercise the students were not unanimous in the viewthat the field-based session would be valuable to their own development as a teacher. Infact, 22 (36%) of them felt that it would not be useful. Students with an existing affinityfor the outdoors expected the experience to have more value (t-test: n = 60, p < 0.001;mean ± SD scores = 2.0 ± 0.4 (outdoor people) and 2.8 ± 0.8 (not outdoor people)). How-ever, there was overlap between the two groups of students and not all outdoor enthusi-asts expected the day to be valuable, nor did all of those without an affinity with theoutdoors expect the day to have limited value.

Figure 1. Pre-service teacher perceptions of the value of a fieldwork exercise to support the develop-ment of field-based teaching. Data were collected before participation in the exercise. Levels of percep-tions of value are presented on the horizontal axis (1 = very useful to 4 = not very useful); numbers ofstudents with each view are presented on the vertical axis. Solid bars represent students who consider

themselves to be outdoor people; open bars indicate students who do not

170 G.W. Scott et al.

The responses of the students to the question, ‘Why do you think the field day will orwill not be valuable to your development as a teacher?’ were very varied. As would beexpected, students recording a score of 1 or 2 in Figure 1 (higher value) made generallypositive statements. They saw a value in the day because it would provide them withexperiences and skills linked to field-based science in a very direct way. Some suggestedthat it would stimulate their delivery of the wider curriculum through fieldwork, or that itwould provide a knowledge base that would help them to plan and lead their own field-work. Those recording a score of 3 or 4 (lower value) made more negative comments.They tended not to see a link between the activities to be undertaken during the trip andfieldwork involving primary school children. One student suggested that they would notbe involved in fieldwork themselves and so felt that the day might have been better spenton classroom-focused activity. Analysis of the students’ negative comments revealed tea-cher engagement and enthusiasm; organisation and planning; health and safety, and riskmanagement; and teacher practical (and perhaps subject) knowledge as pressing concernsand therefore barriers to involvement in fieldwork-based teaching that are firmly estab-lished even during the training phase of a teacher’s career.

Practising Teachers’ Perceptions

Potential barriers to fieldwork. It is clear from Table 1 that teachers have varying opin-ions on the relative significance of the potential barriers to fieldwork; none scored consis-tently positively or negatively. Most consider potential barriers to be relatively easilyovercome, but some consider particular barriers to be significant. For example, T7 seeslack of suitable field site and costs associated with fieldwork as being restrictions thatcould only be addressed by the provision of additional support. In focus group discussionthis teacher put forward the idea that fieldwork is better when it takes place at a sitesome distance from the school, thereby incurring a transport cost. Only one teacher sug-gests that barriers might be so great that they could not be overcome (lack of suitableequipment and lack of suitable sites for fieldwork). Comparing the six teachers who wereparticipants in the focus groups with the wider sample of teachers from their schools, itis evident that although some factors are consistently scored as significant barriers (e.g.lack of equipment, cost and location) or as barriers of relatively limited consequence (e.g.class size, behaviour of the children, risk assessment paperwork), a greater element ofdisagreement exists around some of them. Notable in this regard are lack of teacherknowledge about the outdoor setting (project participants ranking it as joint fifth, whilethe teachers of the wider sample rank it as 12th), perhaps indicating that project partici-pants were becoming anxious about the fact that they were about to be involved in field-work, whereas this was a more hypothetical question for the other teachers. Similarly, theparticipating teachers may have been less concerned about timetable constraints (rankedjoint ninth) than were the teachers of the wider population (ranked third) because theyhad already been assured that the fieldwork would take place.

Analysis of the focus group discussions brought to light seven themes grouping barri-ers to fieldwork. In order of frequency of occurrence (not necessarily in order of impor-tance), these were issues related to: school culture, the teachers themselves, school

Barriers to Biological Fieldwork 171

organisational practices, cost constraints, child behaviour, risk and location. The fre-quency of occurrence of each theme and of sub-themes within them is presented inTable 2. The following analysis and discussion is organised around these themes.

School culture. We identified a group of sub-themes related to school culture. Foremostamong them was a view that one of the key barriers to fieldwork is the priority given toteaching focused upon nationally determined assessment and inspection protocols (in theUK context SATs1 and OFSTED2). Teachers explained that colleagues were unwilling toshare timetable space or teaching assistants to facilitate fieldwork because there was aperception that by doing so SATs results in other curriculum areas might not be achievedand that as a result an OFSTED inspection might not go well.

Neither Lock (2010) nor Rickinson et al. (2004) highlight assessment and inspectionregimes as having a particular influence upon fieldwork provision at the primary leveland so we did not consider it as a potential barrier in our pre-project questionnaire. Fisher(2001) has identified assessment culture as a barrier to fieldwork in a secondary schoolsetting, stating that ‘the assessment system does not require fieldwork to be carried outand all our teaching time is needed to cover what has to be assessed’ (83), and recently

Table 2. Breakdown of key themes and subthemes revealed through focus group discussions

Theme Subtheme Examples

School culture (36) Assessment,inspection (11)

Assessment (SATs) and inspection (OFSTED) drivingschool priorities

School culture (10) Established practice, the place of fieldwork within theschool context

Use of time (6) Organisation/allocation of administrative time, burden ofpaperwork

Staff inertia (5) Unwillingness to adapt and change, negative perceptions offieldwork

Support (4) Peer support, parental support, institutional supportTeachers (28) Training (11) Pre-practice training and CPD

Knowledge (9) Perceived specialism, lack of key subject knowledgeConfidence (8) Willingness to overcome barriers and move beyond the

Comfort zoneOrganisation (14) Timetable (8) Limited space for fieldwork within timetable

Curriculum (4) Isolation of science within curriculumClass (2) Mixed-age classes, class size

Cost (12) Cost (12) Transport costs, equipment costs, parental contributionsBehaviour (8) Behaviour (8) Child management, children with particular behavioural

needs and/or learning needsRisk (6) Risk (6) Safeguarding, risk assessment, responsibility and liabilityLocation (3) Location (3) Limited access to suitable locations

Note: Seven key themes and their component subthemes are listed according to frequency of occurrencewithin the six transcripts (numbers in parentheses).SATs = UK National Curriculum assessments in English, Mathematics, and until 2009 Science; OF-STED = Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills; CPD = continuing profes-sional development.

172 G.W. Scott et al.

Waite (2009), in her study of outdoor learning provision for 2–11-year-olds in Devon,has made a similar observation, linking a sharp fall in outdoor opportunities for learning(particularly from age 6) and increasing pressure upon teachers to reach assessment tar-gets. This may be an emerging issue in the primary education context and one thatshould be given urgent attention. It was clearly relevant to the teachers in our project.We argue that the sentiment expressed by T1, ‘all heads and teachers are asking is willthis [proposed fieldwork] improve our results?’, provides a potential means to overcom-ing this barrier. If sceptical practitioners and managers saw a stronger emphasis upon theimportance of fieldwork in the National Curriculum and could be shown that fieldworkhas a positive impact upon those areas of learning assessed by SATs, they might be morereceptive to the promotion of fieldwork in their schools. In Sweden, for example, thepressure to achieve targets is a positive force for fieldwork rather than a barrier to it(Magntorn and Helldén 2006).Lack of time to develop and deliver fieldwork was also highlighted as a barrier, which

was not surprising given the work of Lock (2010), who reviewed 13 works on fieldworkpublished between 1963 and 2007 and found that time was a key barrier to fieldwork inall but one of them.The two remaining cultural barriers to fieldwork involve interactions with other people.

Staff inertia was raised by a number of teachers. There was a view that some colleagueswere ‘set in their ways’ and traditional practices were fixed because of a lack of motiva-tion to change or a perception that other pressures (SATs) operated to stifle change. Onthe other hand, having the support of parents (to assist in fieldwork directly, to support itfinancially and to encourage their children to take part in it) and of school managers (yearleaders, subject heads, heads of school and governing bodies) was seen by many as animportant prerequisite for the development of effective fieldwork.The importance of a supportive school culture has been demonstrated by Malone and

Tranter (2003). They showed that children are more likely to exhibit play linked to envi-ronmental cognition, and therefore to develop a positive connection with nature, inschools that have an embedded positive philosophy towards the use of their grounds asan extension of the classroom rather than simply as a place in which children can ‘let offsteam’.

Teachers. Three key sub-themes which related directly to individual teachers came to thefore during the focus group discussions: issues around training, issues around teacherknowledge and issues related to teacher confidence.

Kendall et al. (2006) reported that levels of pre-service training in learning outside theclassroom vary considerably between institutions and courses in the UK. Their surveyfound that although all undergraduate primary teachers in training received some trainingin fieldwork, only two-thirds to four-fifths of postgraduate primary teachers in trainingdid so. In order to obtain qualified teacher status, trainees are expected to cover educationoutside the classroom within their course, but the relevant training standard only statesthat trainees are to be able to plan outdoor learning opportunities; they do not have tohave actual practical experience of delivering learning in an outdoor setting (although thismay have been part of their placement in schools). In an effort to address this problem inthe secondary school context, Tilling and Dillon (2007) have proposed a manifesto for

Barriers to Biological Fieldwork 173

training which urges training providers to move beyond the minimum standard and pro-vide pre-service teachers with a comprehensive package of authentic training opportuni-ties. The pre-service training of participating teachers included very little, if any, tuitionon how to teach through fieldwork. Three of the teachers had completed the fieldworkactivity undertaken by the pre-service teachers who contributed data to this project. Theirperceptions of that experience varied, but all agreed that it was the most memorableexperience of the science component of their curriculum. Continuing professional devel-opment (CPD) opportunities for the teachers were limited and there was a view that therewas more CPD available in other areas (e.g. physical education and modern foreign lan-guages). They were less aware of science opportunities generally and none could describeopportunities directly related to fieldwork. There was also a perception that timetable con-straints prevented individual teachers from accessing CPD opportunities, particularly ifparticipation involved a real cost (supply teacher charges, travel and accommodationcosts, registration costs) or had the potential to impact negatively upon attainment targets.We believe that a lack of appropriate training is directly linked to the remaining sub-

themes concerning teachers (subject knowledge and confidence). They were brought intothe discussions more often by the researchers than by teachers, suggesting that within thecontext of this project they may not have the significance ascribed to them by otherauthors (e.g. Howitt 2007; Nundy, Dillon, and Dowd 2009; O’Donnell, Morris, andWilson 2006; Rickinson et al. 2004). Subject knowledge per se was not considered to bea significant barrier and teachers described themselves as being equipped to overcome theknowledge barrier if they have the confidence and motivation to do so. Magntorn andHelldén (2006) reported that a sample of experienced teachers in Sweden held a similarview about themselves but believed that a lack of subject confidence did prevent theircolleagues from carrying out fieldwork. It is likely that having a combination of practicaland subject experience will enhance an individual teacher’s willingness to step outside.The view has also been expressed that a lack of knowledge about local ecology amongchildren is a barrier to effective fieldwork (Magntorn and Helldén 2006). A better under-standing of the interplay between these factors would assist the design of appropriatetraining for teachers. From our discussions with practising teachers, there is a sense thatconcerns about teacher confidence linked to simply moving beyond the classroom ratherthan to a lack of subject knowledge may be more important as barriers to fieldwork. Keyhere is an observation made by teachers after their involvement in fieldwork, and reportedby Scott, Boyd, and Colquhoun (2013), that teachers can learn alongside the children intheir class and that overcoming the knowledge barrier in partnership with children canactually add value to fieldwork.Based upon our discussions, teachers would value training which related to practical

aspects of working out of doors rather than training related to specialist subject knowl-edge. We agree with the statement of the House of Commons Education and Skills Com-mittee (2005), ‘we are not convinced that initial teacher training does a good enough jobin terms of giving trainee teachers the confidence they need to take their pupils out of theclassroom’, and endorse the proposition of Tilling and Dillon (2007) that OFSTED con-sider the adequacy of training in this area in their inspection of UK initial teacher training.

174 G.W. Scott et al.

Organisation. Within-school organisational barriers to fieldwork include timetable con-straints, curriculum pressure and class size (Table 2). The timetable in general and thestructure of the typical school day were seen as presenting a difficulty, particularly whenlinked to the precedence given to literacy and numeracy teaching geared towards SATs(see above). Class size was seen as a potential barrier to fieldwork. Some teachers feltthat the staffing levels required to ensure a safe adult:child ratio were difficult to achieve(even when parents joined fieldwork sessions), citing safeguarding, supervision, cost andorganisational problems in these contexts. Ratios ranging from 1:3 to support early-years(4–5 years old) fieldwork to 1:15 for Year 6 (10–11 years old) work in low-risk environ-ments were mentioned, and there was a consensus that a ratio close to 1:5 or 1:6 wasideal at Key Stage 2 (8–11 years). Some teachers described a local context in whichparental support was forthcoming and was clearly a significant enabling factor, but forothers parent helpers were not always seen as an adequate substitute for teachers andteaching assistants.

Cost. The financial implications of fieldwork, in particular the cost of transporting chil-dren to a suitable field site by coach, were the first barrier to be brought forward by oneof the two groups, suggesting that this is currently a key issue in our local context. Fromboth focus groups it became apparent that school budgets are under pressure and that thecosts limit fieldwork. Similarly, Waite (2009) reported that funding problems were themost commonly cited barrier to learning outside the classroom, in her study of teachersworking with 2–11-year-olds. However, this is not a new issue. In his review of morethan 40 years of fieldwork provision for 16–19-year-olds in the UK, Lock (2010) foundevidence that costs influenced fieldwork provision throughout that period. The extent towhich costs are an insurmountable barrier to fieldwork seems therefore to be limited:fieldwork has always persisted in spite of its cost and is likely to do so. This view hasbeen reinforced by the House of Commons Select Committee (2005), which foundnumerous examples of schools carrying out high-quality fieldwork on limited budgetsand of relatively wealthy schools that did very little. Some schools ask parents to make acontribution to trip costs, but for others this is not possible either because parents cannotafford it or, in the view of one teacher, because parents do not see the value of fieldwork(this links to the concept that parental support is a prerequisite for successful fieldwork,as discussed previously). Some teachers saw making use of the school grounds or of hab-itats adjacent to the school as a way of reducing costs.

Behaviour of children. Anxieties about pupil management were raised in several contextsby members of both discussion groups, but this was not a concern for all teachers. Poorbehaviour was clearly seen as a very specific and often cohort-related issue and the viewwas commonly expressed that a sufficient adult:child ratio was an adequate solution(although, as has been discussed, achieving this ratio can in itself be a challenge). Severalteachers made the observation that children enjoy fieldwork and that it often promotedengagement by children who in a classroom setting might be likely to become disen-gaged. There was a perception that properly managed fieldwork may help to amelioratesome behavioural problems (Scott, Boyd, and Colquhoun 2013). The uncertainty of

Barriers to Biological Fieldwork 175

fieldwork, and the fact that children could learn through investigation, was seen generallyas being positive, although it should be noted that not all children respond to uncertaintyin the same way.

Risk. Rickinson et al. (2004) suggested that ‘fear and concern about young people’shealth and safety’ (42) is a key barrier to learning out of doors and there is, in our opin-ion, an acceptance among the wider population that a risk-averse culture limits the field-work opportunities of children. However, risk assessment was raised as a barrier tofieldwork by group B quite late in their discussion, and in group A it was raised by theASE stakeholder rather than by a teacher. This suggests that risk per se was not the mostsignificant barrier in the minds of teachers thinking about fieldwork in their own school.There was a counter-view that in recent times teachers have become reluctant to takechildren out of doors because of the administrative burden of the paperwork (risk assess-ments and parental consent slips specifically) rather than because of risk aversion. Therewas, however, a generally expressed view that recent policy changes at national levelmight reduce this burden.

Location. The location of a suitable field site was raised as a barrier to fieldwork. Oneview was that suitable sites were always some distance from the school and transportcosts were a problem. The use of such sites was seen as necessary because their noveltyoffered the children a more valuable experience. Some teachers realised that their ownschool grounds offered a range of habitats appropriate for fieldwork (ponds, gardens, fieldmargins, etc.), but explained that they were unused because of a lack of equipment orbecause of competition with other users such as physical education teachers. There wasacknowledgement that use of a local habitat reduced difficulties related to risk assessmentand adult:child ratios. A similar issue was reported by Magntorn and Helldén (2006),who found that a lack of ‘high quality nature’ was the second most common issue raisedby teachers who were attempting to explain the reasons that their colleagues did notengage in fieldwork. The same teachers did not see this as an issue in their own practice,perhaps linked to their confidence in their own experience (see above). Through our ownwork (Scott et al. 2012) we have demonstrated that local fieldwork is valuable.

Conclusions

We have shown that practising teachers are aware of a suite of potential barriers to field-work, and that in their view some of these barriers may be sufficient to prevent fieldworktaking place. Encouragingly, we have also shown that teachers have a willingness toovercome these barriers. Practical considerations around resources (costs, equipment,transport, etc.) and paperwork (planning and risk assessment) were seen as being impor-tant by teachers responding to a general questionnaire about fieldwork, but when askedto consider the detail of an actual field-based activity in their own school setting theiremphasis moved towards teacher confidence, training, and aspects of school culture andmanagement. This is important because it suggests that teacher views may be contingentupon the circumstances under which they are sought. This is therefore a consideration for

176 G.W. Scott et al.

future work and for the interpretation of existing data. Our findings also suggest that in ahistorical perspective it may be that barriers once thought to be important may now beroutinely overcome while new barriers are coming to the fore. For example, the teachersin our focus groups did not consider risk to be a particularly significant barrier, whereasearlier workers have suggested that it was (Lock 2010; Rickinson et al. 2004 and refer-ences therein), and we have identified pressure to meet assessment and inspection targetsas a potential emerging barrier which should be a focus of future research. From the pre-service teachers involved in our project it is clear that an individual’s predisposition tobeing out of doors is key to an openness to find value in training related to field-basedteaching. We suggest that this should be taken into account by training providers and thata one-size-fits-all model may not be appropriate. Reluctant teachers may require moresupport than those who are already confident outside the classroom.

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper is part of a wider project, ‘Harnessing enthusiasm for biodiversity toenhance the learning experience’, which has been generously funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Founda-tion. We are grateful to Dr Raymond Goulder and Professor Peter Gilroy for their advice during thepreparation of this manuscript. We are of course particularly grateful to the participants in the research,Mr David Overton (ASE) and Dr Jo Pike, who took part in focus group discussions, and to the studentsand teachers who contributed to the data set.

Notes

1. SATs: UK National Curriculum assessments in English, Mathematics, and until 2009 Science.2. OFSTED: The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills; the non-ministerial

office responsible for the maintenance of standards in UK schools.

References

Barker, S. 2005. “Student-Centered Ecology: Authentic Contexts and Sustainable Science.” In Teachingin the Sciences: Learner Centered Approaches, edited by C. McLoughlin and A. Taji, 9–25. NewYork: Food Products Press.

Barker, S., D. Slingsby, and S. Tilling 2002. Teaching Biology outside of the Classroom: Is It Headingfor Extinction? A Report on Biology in the 14–19 Curriculum. FSC Occasional Publication 72.Preston Montford, Shropshire: Field Studies Council.

BERA. 2011. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British Educational Research Associationwww.BERA.ac.uk.

Bixler, R., M. F. Floyd, and W. E. Hammitt. 2002. “Environmental Socialization: Quantitative Tests ofthe Childhood Play Hypothesis“. Environment and Behaviour 34 (6): 795–818.

Dillon, J. and I. Dickie. 2012. Learning in the Natural Environment: Review of Social and EconomicBenefits and Barriers. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 092. Natural England.

Dillon, J., M. Rickinson, K. Teamey, M. Morris, M. Y. Choi, D. Sanders, and P. Benefield. 2006. “TheValue of Outdoor Learning: Evidence from Research in the UK and Elsewhere.” School ScienceReview 87 (320): 107–111.

Ewert, A., G. Place, and J. Sibthorp. 2005. “Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and an Individual’s Envi-ronmental Attitudes.” Leisure Sciences 27 (3): 225–239.

Barriers to Biological Fieldwork 177

Fisher, J. A. 2001. “The Demise of Fieldwork as an Integral Part of Science Education in UnitedKingdom Schools: A Victim of Cultural Change and Political Pressure?” Pedagogy, Culture andSociety 9 (1): 75–96.

House of Commons Education and Skills Committee’s Report. 2005. Education Outside the Classroom(Second Report). London: HMSO.

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2008. Systematics and Taxonomy:Follow up. London: HMSO.

Howitt, C. 2007. “Pre-service Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors in a Holistic Methods CourseInfluencing their Confidence in Teaching Science”. Research in Science Education 37 (1): 41–58.

Kendall, S., J. Murfield, J. Dillon, and A. Wilkin 2006. Education Outside the Classroom: Research toIdentify What Training is Offered by Initial Teacher Training Institutions. Research Report 802,National Foundation for Educational Research/Department for Education and Skills. London.

Lock, R. 2010. “Biology Fieldwork in Schools and Colleges in the UK: An Analysis of EmpiricalResearch from 1963 to 2009.” Journal of Biological Education 44 (2): 58–64.

Magntorn, O., and G. Helldén. 2006. “Reading Nature – Experienced Teachers’ Reflections on a Teach-ing Sequence in Ecology: Implications for Future Teacher Training.” NorDiNa 5: 67–81.

Malone, K., and P. J. Tranter. 2003. “School Grounds as Sites for Learning: Making the Most of Envi-ronmental Opportunities.” Environmental Education Research 9 (3): 283–303.

Maynard, T., J. Waters, and J. Clement. 2013. “Moving Outdoors: Further Explorations of “Child-initi-ated” Learning in the Outdoor Environment”. Education 3–13, 41 (3): 282–299.

Moseley, C., K. Reinke, and V. Bookout. 2002. “The Effect of Outdoor Environmental Education onPreservice Teachers’ Attitudes toward Self–efficacy and Outcome Expectancy.” Journal of Environ-mental Education 34 (1): 9–15.

Nundy, S., J. Dillon, and P. Dowd. 2009. “Improving and Encouraging Teacher Confidence in out-of-Classroom Learning: The Impact of the Hampshire Trailblazer Project on 3–13 CurriculumPractitioners.” Education 3–13, 37 (1): 61–73.

O’Donnell, L., M. Morris, and R. Wilson. 2006. “Education outside the Classroom: An Assessment ofActivity and Practice in Schools and Local Authorities.” Research Report 803, National Foundationfor Educational Research/Department for Education and Skills, DfES Publications, Nottingham

Reiss, M., and M. Braund. 2004. “Practicalities and Safety Issues.” In Science outside the Classroom,edited by M. Braund and M. Reiss, 1–12. London: Routledge Falmer.

Rickinson, M., J. Dillon, K. Teamey, M. Morris, M. Y. Choi, D. Sanders, and P. Benefield. 2004.A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning. Preston Montford, Shropshire: Field Studies Council.

Scott, G., M. Boyd, and D. Colquhoun. 2013. “Changing Spaces, Changing Relationships: The PositiveImpact of Learning out of Doors.” Australian Journal of Outdoor Education 17 (1): 47–53.

Scott, G. W., H. Churchill, M. Grassam, and L. J. Scott. 2012. “Can the Integration of Field and Class-room Based Learning Enhance Writing? the Life on Our Shore Case Study.” Education 3–13, 40(5): 547–560.

Scott, G., M. Grassam, and L. Scott. 2011. “Life on Our Shore.” Primary Science 117: 29–32.Tal, T., and O. Morag. 2009. “Reflective Practice as a Means for Preparing to Teach Outdoors in an

Ecological Garden.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 20: 245–262.Tilling, S. 2004. “Fieldwork in UK Secondary Schools: Influences and Provision.” Journal of Biological

Education 38: 54–58.Tilling, S., and J. Dillon 2007. Initial Teacher Education and the Outdoor Classroom: Standards for the

Future. Shrewsbury, UK: Field Studies Council/Association of Science Educators.Waite, S. 2007. “Memories are made of this: Some Reflections on Outdoor Learning and Recall”. Edu-

cation 3–13, 35 (4): 333–347.Waite, S. 2009. “Outdoor Learning for Children Aged 2–11: Perceived Barriers, Potential Solutions.” Paper

presented at ‘Outdoor Education Research and Theory: Critical Reflections, New Directions’, TheFourth International Outdoor Education Conference, La Trobe University, Australia, April 15–18.

178 G.W. Scott et al.