Home
Blogs
Developing procedural knowledge to facilitate progression in fieldwork

Developing procedural knowledge to facilitate progression in fieldwork

8 January 2024

Read time: 4mins

‘For teachers looking to focus on planning for progression in fieldwork, a good starting point is to consider all the things that make fieldwork challenging.’

Chloe Searl

Fieldwork provision is currently at an interesting crossroads. During the COVID-19 pandemic, schools ceased doing fieldwork and many have yet to return to their previous programme of outdoor learning.

Many teachers have taken the hiatus as an opportunity to take stock of the fieldwork experiences they offer their students and to reconsider what fieldwork looks like in their schools (Sloggett, 2021) much as one would in eras of curriculum reform (Trafford, 2017).

Progression and planning for procedural knowledge

It was extremely timely therefore that the Ofsted Subject Report for Geography examined fieldwork provision while these decisions and reflections were taking place and it is perhaps of little surprise that the report’s findings mirror the transitional and insecure nature of fieldwork at present.

Two related aspects of the report stand out and will be of interest to teachers who are currently reviewing their provision. Firstly, there was an observation across both primary and secondary phases that fieldwork planning does not always consider progression – the strategic mapping of experiences across key stages to increasingly challenge students in the different aspects of the enquiry process.

‘Fieldwork was underdeveloped in almost all schools, as the curriculum did not consider how pupils would make progress in their ability to carry out fieldwork over time.’

Secondly, the report identified that planning for the acquisition of procedural knowledge (knowing how to use geographical skills) was equally fragmented. This implies that geographical skills may be taught in isolation and without the scope for students to retrieve this knowledge, review it and improve on earlier efforts.

‘Leaders had not identified when to teach different aspects of procedural knowledge or how pupils would have the opportunity to practise using it to become more skilled in applying it.’

Balancing data collection with presentation and analysis

Readers will recognise that these observations are two sides of the same coin. Students cannot be expected to make progression in fieldwork, and complete ever more challenging enquiries if they are not given ample opportunities to practice the skills that form the pieces of the enquiry jigsaw. It is worth noting that this discussion is based around fieldwork enquiries, not just the time spent out of the classroom.

A further observation made by the Ofsted Subject Report was that teachers did not balance the data collection phase out of the classroom with consistent data presentation and analysis on their return. This means that there may be missed opportunities for using fieldwork as a vehicle for deeper analytical thinking that bolsters wider geographical knowledge and understanding in the long term (Kinder, 2018).

Where to start?

For teachers looking to focus on planning for progression in fieldwork, a good starting point is to consider all the things that make fieldwork challenging. For example, the level of familiarity that students will have with the location, the nature of the tasks students are being asked to perform, and the amount of prior knowledge students will have about the underpinning theory are all areas in which challenge can and should be gauged.

The analysis of current fieldwork provision should be broken down into the different enquiry strands: title; data collection techniques; data presentation techniques; data analysis techniques; conclusion; and evaluation (see the In The Know and Know How guides for more details about what is included in each of these strands). Progression in each strand should be individually plotted, with teachers analysing how fieldwork becomes more challenging through different year groups and key stages. Progression maps for schools to follow do exist (see for example Tanner, 2021 and Monk, 2016) but adaption is key: unlike other curriculum areas, fieldwork is uniquely personal to particular schools as a result of their location, cohorts and circumstances.

Teachers often feel the pressure of trying to develop procedural knowledge that will allow their students to access and complete fieldwork enquiries. Many cite the volume and depth of topic content as a barrier to skill expansion, particularly that found at GCSE and A level (Meneer, 2021). However, with some time to reflect on the curricula and how it is taught, teachers will also recognise the huge amount of resources (print, audio and video) to which we expose our students.

These resources are laden with opinions that can be analysed, images that can be annotated and numerical data which can be re-presented graphically. By then mapping these opportunities within curriculum documents, teachers can identify gaps in students’ procedural knowledge and plan for their development.

Using resources such as the Methods of Collecting / Presenting / Analysing Fieldwork Data books will help teachers to create a hierarchy of skills across their key stages. Teachers might also want to develop virtual fieldwork based on these skills when introducing a new topic or a new location (Ying Chua et al. 2021). This can give students opportunities to revisit certain elements of procedural knowledge and develop their ability to critique certain techniques.

The GA runs a CPD workshop ‘Improving Geography Fieldwork Provision and Outcomes’ for secondary teachers which focuses both on progression in fieldwork and on ways to embed enquiry and fieldwork skills into the planning of everyday teaching.

The Getting our bearings series

The Getting our bearings blog series is a collection of posts which signpost GA support for some of the themes which were flagged in the recent Ofsted geography subject report and which have also come through strongly in our work with teachers.