The residential fieldtrip experience: Evolving teacher–student relationships

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

The residential fieldtrip experience: Evolving teacher–student relationships Nick Gee ⁎ School of Education & Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 October 2011 Received in revised form 31 July 2012 Accepted 3 September 2012 Available online 27 September 2012 Keywords: Social interaction Residential fieldwork Ethnography Multi-sensory participation Anti-structural

a b s t r a c t In this article I argue that a residential field study experience, by providing a different ‘antistructural’ space away from school, alters the social interactions between teachers and students. I explore how social and cultural aspects of this experience transformed the relationships between three teachers and thirty-six AS level students participating in a week long residential trip to a UK Field Study Centre in March 2009. For this in-depth study I adopted an ethnographic methodology in which I participated in, observed and recounted some of the complex and multi-faceted experiences felt by the respective participants. I argue that several overlapping elements of the residential experience contributed to perceived changes in the relationship throughout the week, as school norms were challenged. Some of the resulting relationship changes were felt to have lasting impacts, with potential social, affective and cognitive benefits beyond the fieldtrip, once the students had returned to their school setting. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This article seeks to show how an ethnographic methodology can reveal detailed insights into the transforming social interactions between teachers and students during residential fieldwork. I argue that several features of the transformed relationships can be analysed in relation to an ‘anti-structural’ space (Turner, 1969) of suspended school norms. This analysis originates from research into ‘rites of passage’, originally based upon non-Western maturity rituals which revealed the potential for ritual moments of separation from normal social structures to enact transformations in individuals and societies (Van Gennep, 1960). Such separation, afforded here by the temporary residential fieldtrip, generates ‘anti-structural’ space in which normal social conventions are suspended, changes in social hierarchies occur and the resulting atmosphere is one of ‘communitas’ (Turner, 1969). My experiences and understandings from the trip are based upon my own multi-sensory participation, aspects of which I seek to convey through the text of this article by including ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 1988) and verbatim quotes. This research is focused upon a single institution, Oaklands Field Study Centre, 1 and on one particular week (9–13 March, 2009) when a group from St. Catherine's High School visited. This is a very specific location and timeframe, with a particular group of students, creating in effect a non-replicable set of circumstances. Whilst my premise is that all fieldtrips are unique, dependent upon their location, time and participants I argue that the findings arising from my particular research do have wider applicability. I position this research within the field of outdoor education, a field in which Rickinson et al. (2004) suggest that many studies compare pre-trip and post trip outcomes, adopting quantitative or mixed method approaches. By employing an ethnographic methodology I set out to examine evolving processes on the trip, capturing the complex and multi-faceted nature of experiences, whilst exploring the complexities and contradictions within my data. As my focus is specifically upon teacher–student relationships, this brings a different perspective to issues identified in studies of residential fieldwork. Social benefits previously

⁎ Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Tel.: +44 1603 593152. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 All locations, institutions and individuals have been given fictionalised names to preserve their anonymity. 2210-6561/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.09.001

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

209

identified include improvements in group cohesion (Farnham & Mutrie, 1997), co-operation (Nundy, 1999), communication (Purdie et al., 2002) and camaraderie (Bell, 2005). Mygind (2009) cited more and new social relations and less teasing and disturbances when compared to school, whilst Beames and Atencio (2008) referred to the building of ‘social capital’ through trust and reciprocity. Improved motivation levels amongst participants can stem from the realisation that learning can be fun (Dillon et al., 2005) and from the positive affective experience of a residential trip (Boyle et al., 2007). It is argued that affective learning can be linked to cognitive learning (Ballantyne & Packer, 2002; Manzanal et al., 1999; Nundy, 1999), whilst behavioural benefits include a reduction in tension and aggression (Farnham & Mutrie, 1997). I suggest that my research responds to the difficulty of quantifying the impacts of fieldtrips (Besenyei et al., 2004) and seeks to explore those experiences which are immeasurable and, as such, are not always overtly recognised by trip leaders or Senior Management Teams within schools. It fills a gap by exploring “diffuse, non-subject specific” (Besenyei et al., 2004, p7) impacts of residential fieldtrips, based around intangible, yet intense, group feelings of togetherness (Lambert & Balderstone, 2010). Previous research on teacher–student relationships has focused upon the ‘social climate’ in classrooms, considering the quality of social relations with reference to teacher and student perceptions of each other (den Brok et al., 2004; Mainhard et al., 2011). Some studies suggest that the way students perceive their teachers strongly influences their academic performance and general well being (Brophy, 1998; Davis, 2003). Other related research analyses student perceptions of teacher behaviour distinguishing between coercive and supportive behaviours and the impacts of these (Creton et al., 1989; Lewis, 2001). By focusing upon an out of school setting and employing an ethnographic methodology, my research adds a new perspective to this field. 2. Method The selection of my case was achieved by choosing a school group, as opposed to approaching a specific field study centre, since I felt that access to a school group was potentially more problematic. From my professional involvement with schools in relation to Initial Teacher Education, I enquired about those running residential trips, who would readily accept me along in order to undertake ethnographic research. I selected the trip to Oaklands as it was fairly local, enabling me to make provisional visits to develop an understanding of the centre and its locality. Also as the St. Catherine's group were Year 12 students, I felt they may potentially be more mature and sophisticated in expressing insights about their thoughts and feelings. Observation was a significant source of my data, which I sought to gather from a wide range of locations. I strived to immerse myself in the experience where possible, taking the role of a multi-sensory participant (Pink, 2009) by engaging and assisting with fieldwork, participating at mealtimes, in classrooms and during recreational activities. Joining in whilst also acutely watching, listening and trying to commit things to memory was a demanding and draining task. It necessitated me having to remember events and incidents, grabbing opportunities to write these up subsequently. On other occasions I had my clipboard or notebooks in front of me, an observer of the participation of others. I obtained oral data from a variety of sources including my own informal conversations with informants, overheard speech and semi-formal interviews. The nature of my conversations altered throughout the week; initially I was concerned with acceptance and integration, keen to exude quiet but genial sociability, in order to build trust. As the trip progressed I felt that my rapport developed, as I became a more accepted member and participant in events. By Thursday and Friday I attempted to use some conversations to gather specific data, by thinking on my feet in response to comments and steering chatter into my own research agenda. Overheard speech was a rich and plentiful source of oral data, although sometimes I suspected I was eavesdropping. The participants may have been oblivious to this, but equally I felt that by virtue of my presence they may have modified their conversations, either deliberately or subconsciously. It was not possible for me to definitively differentiate between such circumstances or motives, but alongside my thick descriptions I was able to contextualise speech. I conducted semi-formal individual interviews 2 with all three teachers and seventeen of the thirty-six students on the trip. Eight students I specifically pre-selected to interview, based upon my observation of events earlier in the week, whilst the remaining student interviews were randomly selected, based upon availability. Further interviews were held with the three teachers and four students back at school, three weeks after the fieldtrip. The research was conducted in an overt manner in that all participants on the trip were aware of my attendance in advance and that my role was to conduct research on fieldwork. The teachers, centre staff, students and their parents also knew that I was undertaking an ethnography and that I would be making observations of all aspects of the experience. In spite of this, I was unsure whether they really understood what I was looking at, or how the data may appear in my completed ethnographic account. I also agonised over the lack of opportunity for informants to decline, potential vagueness about my intentions, my use of what may be considered covert data collection methods (e.g. eavesdropping) and the potential identification of certain individuals by other members. These difficulties, often associated with ethnographic research, required me to adopt “ethical situationism” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p219) whereby ethical legitimacy is a matter of context and the judgement of the researcher, based upon an assessment of relative benefits and costs. It necessitates avoiding serious harm to participants, but prioritises the need for the legitimacy of research, even if offence to someone cannot necessarily be avoided. I have actively sought to avoid harm and have consistently adopted strict procedures in relation to anonymity (in changing the names of all individuals, institutions and places) and confidentiality (by my careful storage of all documentation and through data restriction). 2 Written consent was obtained for each of the interviews which were taped and transcribed, whilst I obtained prior ethical consent and approval for my research from the school, parents and Field Study Centre and the University Ethics Committee.

210

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

I have also sought to make reflexivity a feature within my research, in relation to my interactions with informants, as well as through the processes of data collection. I analysed my own actions on the same terms as participants (Hammersley, 1984), interspersing my fieldnotes with reflexive commentary to include detail on how I felt I was received and how I perceived this may have affected the data I was collecting. I wrote a reflective journal in which I recorded daily reflections upon my progress to include my thoughts, concerns, anxieties and doubts. For example, throughout my interactions and involvement I was clearly not a ‘member’ of either group and was particularly sensitive to avoid being perceived as close to the teachers, since I felt this could impinge upon how the students reacted towards me. I therefore was constantly and actively managing my relations with the teachers and students, striving to develop rapport, without over-identifying with one particular group, thus attempting to attain “the position of an acceptable marginal member, in relation to several audiences” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p68). The transformation of my fieldnotes was a lengthy and detailed process whereby I initially analysed and coded all my data into six categories, based around the emerging factors 3 which arose through the data. I also identified and focused upon certain ‘critical incidents’ for detailed analysis 4 and constructed an individual case study of one student to develop the analysis of intersecting themes. 5 3. Evolving relationships This section focuses upon a specific incident from the trip in a deliberate strategy to immerse the reader into the lived experience of the trip. I interweave verbatim quotes from my fieldnotes with transcribed interviews, ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz, 1988) and analytical commentary to explore the transforming social relationships through a single event. 3.1. The workout It was 10.30 pm on Wednesday evening. I was in the games room, half listening to and watching a group of six lads playing table tennis, whilst also writing up my fieldnotes from earlier in the day. Alice 6 burst into the room screaming: “…come quick, in the lounge, Halls is doing a fitness video. It's hilarious!” She was initially greeted with slight disdain: “So what, bugger off — can't you see we're busy in here!” However, she persisted: “Come on, come on!” The lads quickly relented and soon, with freshly found enthusiasm, ran at high speed to the lounge. By the time I arrived, Mr Halls (teacher and trip leader) was on his own in front of the TV set, following the moves to a workout video, whilst behind him a huge crowd of onlookers were cheering, laughing and filming on mobile phones and cameras. Mr Halls, occasionally turning around, was clearly enjoying the attention and beckoned others to join him, several of whom did. After a couple of minutes the routine ended and he took the opportunity to fake exhaustion by collapsing into a heap on the floor to wild applause. Laughing and lapping up the adulation, he quickly scrambled to a chair at the side of the room where, together with Miss Wilkins and Miss Scott (the two other accompanying teachers), he proceeded to watch a large group of girls who were working out to further routines. Some were engaging in a serious manner whilst others, perhaps inspired by Mr Halls, participated in an exaggerated or half-hearted manner. The event served to congregate virtually the whole group (I did not mange to do a headcount — but it felt like everyone was present). Some students were even wearing slippers and dressing gowns as they had obviously been tempted out of bed in order to view the spectacle. When I subsequently asked Mr Halls about what happened he recounted that somebody had brought the ‘pump it up video’ from home and that some girls were copying the moves. He and Miss Scott were touring the Centre in a “routine sweep” when they came across it, found it entertaining, so decided to stay and watch for a while. Upon seeing Mr Halls standing and watching, one of the pupils challenged him to join in. After a while the girls started to drop out and when he turned round: “absolutely everyone from the trip was at the back of the room photographing and filming, so I thought I'd better carry on!” Later in the week he referred back to the incident suggesting to me: “It's done wonders for my reputation”, implying that this single incident had changed the perception of students towards him. He also emphasized the spontaneous nature of it: “You can't plan these things… they happen sometimes. It's nice when odd things like that happen”, whilst also acknowledging the potential significance of it upon his relationship with students. Miss Wilkins viewed the event both as a source of amusement, but also as a critical incident which spontaneously served to bring together the whole group: “For a teacher nearing retirement to be doing keep fit stuff to dance music… it was hilarious… and the way it went around the place, all the kids came out from all corners — even getting out of bed…The word went round so quickly, we had the whole group cheering him… I mean that sort of thing is lovely. It'll be talked about forever!” On Thursday and Friday, whilst I was chatting with students, it was the most regularly cited event of the whole week. For example, Harry reflected the sentiments of many by referring to it as the “…most memorable thing on the whole trip.” Some students made reference to suggested impacts of this single incident beyond the trip, in terms of their relationship with Mr Halls. They viewed it as an opportunity to have a laugh with (or perhaps at) him in future, as Rose explained: “It will be funny back at school 'cos we can always bring up the pump it up dancing. It will be funny — we can make fun of him.” The incident was significant in that it served to alter perceptions about a seemingly ageing and potentially boring Geography teacher, to someone with a personality and a sense of fun. Some students cited it as indicative of a ‘different side’ to their teachers, a point explicitly captured 3 4 5 6

See Sections 4.1.1–4.1.6 for these factors. For instance, see ‘The workout’ in Section 3.1 as an example. This case study does not appear in this format, although data is interspersed within the paper. All students are referred to by fictionalised Christian names, teachers by title and surname.

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

211

by Chloe in her observation: “…they're all mental here.” She subsequently qualified this with an awareness of the temporary nature of the fieldtrip, with her expectation that: “…they'll be boring again at school.” This event epitomises the type of spontaneous occurrence on a residential fieldtrip that offers students a different perspective on their teacher, revealing them to be ‘human beings’ (Bell, 2005). It was significant in that it congregated virtually the whole group, providing a memorable shared experience, possibly akin to a “euphoric and fleeting” community moment (Frazer, 1999, p83). Moreover it exemplifies the spontaneous moment of intense ‘communitas’ within the ‘anti-structural’ space (Turner, 1969) away from school, where ‘normal’ teacher–student relationships are suspended. I argue that there are several individual elements, distinctive to the residential experience, which contribute to transforming relationships and these will be discussed in more detail. 4. Results 4.1. Factors contributing to evolving teacher–student relationships I suggest that the broad range of opportunities for social interaction, the more relaxed boundaries between work and leisure, teachers revealing their personality, greater tolerance of student behaviour, a developing social cohesion from communal living and some strategic teacher decision making all contributed to the transforming relationships. Whilst these factors have been isolated for ease of discussion and analysis, they are inevitably inter-related, but I argue all are linked to the new ‘anti-structural’ social setting. 4.1.1. Opportunities and scope for interaction The week at Oaklands provided a breadth of opportunities and scope for interaction between teachers and students, significantly beyond those usually afforded by the school environment. There were several hours of leisure time each day (e.g. before and after mealtimes, evenings) when students spent time sitting around the fireplace, hanging out in the games room, working out to a fitness DVD or playing various outdoor games in the grounds. The teachers rarely spent such time in their own staff room or dormitories, preferring to join in with activities or social chatter. Hugh acknowledged this and seemed to view it positively: “They'll sit around and join in if everyone's talking…we have a good talk with them around the fire. They act more friendly than they do in school… they are more like people than just teachers.” There was not, according to Mr Halls, a strategy to monitor proceedings nor to interact with particular students, but it “… just felt like the sociable thing to do.” All mealtimes afforded some semi-structured non-teaching time, when staff admitted to strategically dispersing themselves between tables, in order to get to know different students. In addition, there were numerous other informal opportunities for social chatter such as in the minibus between site visits, walking to and from the minibus and at sampling sites during off-task moments. On such occasions staff and students appeared eager and willing to engage in conversations on broad-ranging issues, usually unrelated to the school curriculum. However not all students viewed this positively; James was ambivalent about the blurring of the boundaries between school and home in this environment, was conscious of the intrusion upon his privacy and felt that he was being observed by the teachers. The effect of the passage of time on relationships was explicitly commented upon by Miss Wilkins in relation to the attitude of the students: “They've gone from the beginning of the week being very sheepish talking and gossiping in front of us to exchanging gossip about each other, about teachers and about things going on in their lives…they're comfortable with us, there's not that wariness.” This reflected the changing nature of the relationship between the students and teachers, influenced by increasing familiarity, the more egalitarian atmosphere fostered by increased interaction and changing perceptions about identities. 4.1.2. The blurring of boundaries between work and leisure time The Oaklands residential experience allowed opportunity for ‘blending’, whereby the clearly defined time boundaries between work and leisure were blurred. This represented a further contrast with the usual regime back at school; students having greater freedom and flexibility over managing their own time and a more fluid distinction between socialising and work. Some opted to work deep into the evenings (9–10 pm), happy to work less intensively, but with freedom to wander around, make drinks and chatter as they pleased. Teachers were on hand to support with advice and encouragement about the work, but also to participate in off task discussions, which contributed to the relaxed working atmosphere. Also the very nature of practical fieldwork created a less formal working environment than class-based teaching and learning, with greater opportunities for informal interactions and sharing a joke (see Section 4.1.3). The formal classroom sessions held at the centre (briefing sessions prior to fieldwork and recap sessions to explain follow up tasks) were invariably led by Field Study Centre Tutors, with the teachers acting in a supporting role. These circumstances facilitated opportunities for more informal interaction and altered perceptions and attitudes between teachers and their students. Nominal working hours were from 9 am to 5 pm, with further evening sessions from 6.30 pm and the amount of time spent upon work was not lost on several of the students. Tom reflected: “We worked loads, 9–12 hours a day…for the whole week! You are immersed in the work of Geography.” During the trip Findley expressed a similar view: “You get a lot more done here as you are working late and 'cos you're not working hour slots it's easier to get down to work. In a lesson (at school) it can take half an hour to get into the work.” Holly agreed about the time spent, but questioned her own motivation because of the informal atmosphere: “I get more work done here because of the amount of time we spend on it. You just get an hour at a time at school. But here it is more relaxed so I perhaps don't feel like working as much.” Joe described it as an “intense working experience”, but qualified this by suggesting that the: “…work is made enjoyable as you are out and about and working in groups.” Mr Halls also felt that such ‘blending’ made the

212

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

students better motivated and more productive, although James contradicted this stating: “I feel de-motivated and uninterested from overexposure.” 4.1.3. Teachers willing to reveal their own personalities With the greater opportunities for informal interaction, the teachers seemed more willing to discuss matters pertaining to their own personal lives. For instance on Monday lunchtime Miss Scott brought up the subject of her wedding, recounting that she and her husband spontaneously eloped to Scotland without informing anyone. She reported that her Mum was “not too pleased”, but joked that her Dad was relieved because he had saved a lot of money! The students were eager to question her further; about her dress, her husband and her honeymoon and Miss Scott was most forthcoming with details. The teachers were also happy to share jokes with students and on occasions this was self mocking. For instance Miss Scott joked with students in the entrance hall on arrival over the huge size of her suitcase which reflected her vanity and passion for shoes. Sometimes the teachers made fun of each other in front of the students; Miss Wilkins joked that the only reason Miss Scott wanted to lead the Wednesday fieldwork was so she could “pig out on chips”, much to the amusement of the assembled students. Teachers were also not reticent in poking fun at their students, even on politically incorrect, sexist terms. During the heathland study the Centre Tutor was demonstrating the use of a soil auger to obtain soil samples. Mr Halls interrupted his serious explanation with the comment: “It's a soil auger, not a soil ogre”, to which Holly sarcastically retorted: “Ha, ha, very funny Sir!!” The exasperated Tutor had by now lost the attention of the group, who were enjoying the banter. Mr Halls continued: “We are not going to have any problems with the girlie groups are we!!”, to which Lucy responded, to widespread group laughter: “How sexist is that Sir!” Thus all three teachers felt able to make jokes on potentially sensitive ground and in so doing challenged the student's perception of their identity as ‘teachers’. 4.1.4. Greater tolerance of ‘bad’ behaviour In addition to a tendency to demonstrate a greater sense of fun, the teachers also appeared to me to be more tolerant of behaviours that I felt would certainly have been frowned upon at school. During the induction tour of the grounds, a group of lads decided to trip each other up. This quickly escalated to them rugby-tackling each other, often in an exaggerated fashion, before making attempts to pull their trousers down. The teachers were walking behind this fracas but opted not even to comment. In classroom settings at Oaklands, under the more relaxed regime compared to school, students hugging each other and giving piggy back rides were also permitted without comment. The students appreciated this tolerance, as Rose remarked: “The teachers are a lot more relaxed here, a lot more chilled…they treat us more like adults rather than picking us up on little things. They are easier to get on with.” The perception that they appear ‘less like teachers’ is perhaps a combination of the aforementioned amount of time spent together, the broader range of contexts in which they socialised, the more informal working conditions and the more relaxed demeanour of the teachers afforded by the particular setting. This latter point included being able to wear their own clothes, the lack of competing pressures on their time (when compared to a typical school day where they may be photocopying, marking, preparing and teaching five different classes, doing break duty, attending staff briefing, etc.) and a desire to enjoy the experience themselves. These factors all contributed to a changed identity and an altered discourse with their students, which also manifested itself in greater tolerance and patience. This tolerance also extended to permitting and actively joining in conversations and activities that would be off-limits back in school. For instance, on Tuesday evening Miss Scott was engaging in lively banter with the students at her table including jokes about portion size and a competition between Paul and herself over who could eat the most seconds. Conversations then veered towards a discussion of other teachers at the school, including their habits and expressions, with reference to the way one particular teacher slouched in his chair with his legs spread wide apart and another teacher “totally losing it”. Miss Scott was seemingly a willing and eager participant, appearing unperturbed by my presence, frankly sharing her own opinions, and laughing at jokes about her colleagues. She later confided: “…everyone likes a good gossip…but I feel a bit bad talking about other members of staff, but nothing that was said was too awful. I'm sure they talk about me behind my back too.” She explained that she had found it interesting to hear about pupil perceptions of other teachers, to see if they fitted with her own. Such tolerance, together with the willingness to reveal their own personalities and the opportunities for communal interaction contributed to feelings of commonality, which were manifested in sentiments of social cohesion. 4.1.5. Social cohesion One feature of relationships on the trip related to feelings of belonging to, and the development of, a whole group which incorporated both students and teachers. Tom exemplified such sentiments: “It feels like you are part of a massive family”, whilst Holly cited the communal living arrangements as being instrumental in generating such feelings: “Everyone is together — living and eating together and it feels like one close-knit group.” Fran attributed social cohesion to the “informal atmosphere” although Miss Wilkins cited the unique environment of Oaklands itself: “There is something very special about Oaklands. We tend to bring groups and they don't know each other, they don't want to work, but then it all suddenly comes together. We've never seen this happen anywhere else.” Students did explicitly note the unique opportunities afforded by the residential experience, if not the specific Oaklands Centre itself. Paul stated: “I'm going to miss the evenings — sort of being with loads of people because we all go back to our own homes and you never socialise with that many people at once usually.” An important element of the sentiments of social cohesion pertained to feelings of shared adversity. For instance the collection of river data involved climbing in and out of rivers, interspersed with painstaking and detailed measuring and recording of data. Although dry, it was chilly, with a strong breeze and the water felt especially cold through my wellington boots. By 2 pm, at the

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

213

third river sampling site, I witnessed a drop in enthusiasm with the students seeming very lethargic about getting the equipment out of the minibus. The long walk to the riverbank, carrying the bulky and wet equipment, staggered the group significantly and the mood felt sombre and subdued. Miss Wilkins appeared to sense this too and attempted to inject enthusiasm by splashing some of the students on the riverbank. The depth of the river at this site resulted in many of those entering getting wet above their wellington boots. Several, clearly resigned to being wet, proceeded to get even wetter by splashing their peers. When it was time to move on, most students had some wet clothing and ten girls were completely soaked. The temporary euphoria from the small scale water fight turned to groans of disbelief with the recognition that there was a long walk back to the minibus, that they did not have a change of clothes and that it would probably be a couple of hours before there was any prospect of returning to the Centre. The students moaned and laughed whilst Miss Wilkins, who was clearly wet and cold herself, cheerily cajouled them along: “This is what fieldwork is all about, getting freezing and soaked.” In the minibus to the next location I overheard several comments covering a range of viewpoints: “I'm starting to get really pissed off with this now” and “I'm so fed up with rivers — I just want to get back to Oaklands.” Whilst I sensed a mood of genuine discomfort, I felt there was an element of camaraderie and a willingness to see and share in the funny side of things where possible, which the teachers appeared to empathise with (as did I). Mel aptly summed up her feelings on adversity over the whole week, noting an ironic dichotomy: “I don't like the food, not being able to do what I like, having to get up really early, having to work all the time and getting cold and wet, but for some reason I have still really enjoyed it!!” There was perhaps an element of expediency in students making the best of the circumstances and such feelings could also be broadened to social cohesion in general. Findley implied a degree of compulsion in making social relationships work, before qualifying this to express strong enjoyment of the experience: “You are forced to socialise here. At school you sit in your usual tables for lessons and then disappear. I'm going to miss the atmosphere with everyone being together and messing around.” However, it is perhaps important to acknowledge that such social situations and adversity were not necessarily random, nor spontaneous; they were often actively managed by the teachers in charge to meet a pre-determined agenda, which I refer to here as social engineering. 4.1.6. Social engineering On several occasions Mr Halls explicitly referred to “gelling the group” as one of his specific aims for the trip. As the week unfolded, he seemingly implied to me that this was being achieved, with his perceptions on inclusivity and tolerance and by references to the collective ‘group’: “We look after each other and there isn't anyone left out in the cold, I don't think. It's that tolerance as well, they're one of us. Maybe you don't like someone but they're part of the group and there is no ill feeling.” Miss Wilkins felt that, whilst everyone did not get on with each other all the time, there was an overall co-operation and a consideration for others. Whether this represents ‘gelling’ is perhaps contestable, whilst several students perceptively suggested to me that it was unrealistic to project a group identity to all. As an identifiable whole it was convenient for the teachers to project universally assumed generalisations upon ‘the group’, when in reality there were perhaps significant internal differences. One clear exception to ‘whole group’ cohesion was James who confided to me that he did not feel part of the ‘group’ and consequently he consciously avoided the group photograph on Thursday afternoon. Miss Scott suggested that the teachers acted as facilitators in enhancing relationships, since the living and working conditions effectively enforced numerous social interactions: “It is quite nice them being forced into a situation where they have to interact…we try to mix it up a bit, but some of it just happens naturally as well.” Acknowledging this necessity to interact, some students hinted at expediency in making the best of the circumstances, implying that superficial impressions of harmony may mask underlying tensions. For example Sophie commented: “We're all in such close contact, we've just gotta get along, keep smiling and make the best…it is only for a few days…if anyone is annoying you there is enough space to keep out of their way…we've all got our own little bedrooms so we can get away if need be.” On Tuesday evening Mr Halls disappointedly told Miss Scott in the staff room about a student whom he had not seen mixing with anyone other than her existing friends. Overall, I feel that the teachers perceived social engineering within their remit of managing the trip and evaluated their success or failure of this, alongside their more overtly desired outcomes. Consequently their behaviour and motivations in relation to social interaction may have been influenced by their aim to gel the group. 5. Discussion 5.1. Different perspectives on the impacts of changing relationships 5.1.1. Student perceptions The overriding interpretation from the students in relation to the changing relationship with the teachers was that it contributed to their enjoyment of the trip. They regularly remarked about incidents involving their teachers as being ‘fun’. In the context of the trip, improved social relations with their teachers were perhaps viewed as a short term manifestation of being around and living together for an intense period of time. The ‘fun’ was partly attributable to the more relaxed manner of the teachers, seeing them in unfamiliar contexts and being able to get to know them better. Findley commented: “We stop seeing them as teachers and their individual personality comes out more because of the amount of time we spend around them.” However, he thought that this was linked to the unique environment and circumstances on the trip, as a distinctive social climate associated with the ‘anti-structural’ space, and did not feel that it would carry back to school. Another view was that the teachers treated them more like adults and that this would have an impact upon relationships back at school. Tom suggested: “I consider my teachers as

214

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

more human because they treated us like adults. I now have more respect for them” whilst Fergus went further by explaining that he was likely to try harder back at school: “I care more what they think of me, so I will try to do the work well.” Others referred to the private jokes and shared experiences which provided a commonality of experience that students not attending the fieldtrip would not have. Tom elaborated: “It's weird though because we have this same experience, so you sort of got something in common with everyone.” He felt this would give a stronger bond resulting in continued improved relationships with his teachers back at school. This suggests that the residential experience afforded greater opportunities for ‘supportive’ teacher behaviours (Creton et al., 1989) to be exhibited, with a resultant positive impact upon perceptions. However, the closer interactions were not viewed positively by all students; one student felt they were constantly being checked upon and corrected, whilst another resented what they perceived as repression and a lack of privacy. Both these students hinted at a potentially damaged relationship with the teachers as a result of the experience. 5.1.2. Teacher perceptions The teachers, whilst also deriving enjoyment from the informal relationships on the trip, appeared to view them as more significant in potentially having lasting impacts back at school. In an interview with Miss Scott at the end of the week her fondest memories were: “…the camaraderie really, the meal times. I really enjoyed sitting down and sort of chatting to everyone and getting to know the students at a different level and hearing their stories and opinions on school life and the things that you don't maybe notice as a teacher.” Miss Wilkins also emphasized the opportunity to get to know her students as individuals and for the students to get to know her better: “I get a real buzz out of the kids realizing that I'm human… with 2 large classes it is hard to get to know them as individuals, but after a residential you've got that rapport with them, you've had a bit of a joke, you've had time to sit and chat and find out what jobs they do and what their families are like.” They also viewed the experience as having the potential to facilitate changes in the attainment, attitude and behaviour of their students. Mr Halls suggested that: “coming away, learning outdoors… it really helps them when they go back into the classroom at school…it tends to make them more motivated.” Miss Scott highlighted a concrete work-related impact based upon her experience on the trip and assumed that it would continue back at school: “They see us in a different light, we see them in a different light and it just improves working relationships. They are more happy to speak to us if they don't understand anything.” In an interview back at school, three weeks after the trip, Miss Wilkins referred specifically to a group of four lads for whom she felt that the trip had: “definitely opened the channels of communication to the point where they're now being very pro-active and telling me about stuff, asking for help and following my advice …it's a changed relationship completely.” She progressed to refer to the students generally as: “more malleable in a classroom setting”, perhaps reflecting the newfound respect some students had talked of as a result of the perceived ‘supportive’ teacher behaviour (Creton et al., 1989). Mr Halls clearly felt that his aim of gelling the group had been successful: “It is quite clear that there is now that bond.” Prior to the trip Miss Wilkins found that her larger class used to chatter in small groups, but afterwards they chattered as a whole group — often across tables — which was actually more disruptive in lessons. However, she also noted that they were much better at listening, which had made progress in lessons much quicker. She also commented that they were more fluid over where they sat and they were much happier working in teacher-directed groups, without the previous hesitation to talk to each other. Finally, she cited changes in certain individuals: “the quiet ones — Abbie and Fran were not quite so quiet any more, and were more confident working in groups”, whilst Andy was now: “academically and socially flying.” Miss Scott recalled an incident when Andy was sitting alone (as his usual neighbour was away) so Sophie came over and sat next to him to keep him company: “I thought this was really nice… relationships have improved in the class and there is a much more positive atmosphere.” Finally she had also experienced students reminiscing with her about events on the trip. Thus it would seem that short term lasting impacts included improvements in motivation, confidence and communication for certain individuals. Overall, perceptions on the impact of changes were variable; some students recognised the unique and temporary circumstances of the fieldtrip, invoking the notion of ‘reintegration’ back to the normal structure (Turner, 1969). Other students felt there would be longer term impacts on motivation and respect towards their teachers, whilst the teachers believed in the potential of the experience to make changes, both to their knowledge and understanding of individual students and to their broader teaching of the classes. 6. Conclusions I argue that separation from the school setting generated an ‘anti-structural’ space (Turner, 1969) which resulted in teacher– student transformations manifested in more egalitarian relationships, the joking atmosphere, the blending of work and leisure and the informal tone of social interaction. By living together for a whole week the teachers and students developed a sense of identification from being around each other and this was apparent throughout the developing and evolving dynamics of the trip. The specific incident of Mr. Hall's dancing led to the spontaneous assemblage of virtually the whole group, providing a focal point for much subsequent discussion and representing a seminal shifting of teacher identity. It also became a highlight of the week for many, resulted in some permanently re-defined relationships and represented a vivid example of a “fleeting and euphoric community moment” (Frazer, 1999, p83). Many of these factors, I suggest, whilst potentially unacceptable at school are linked to the relaxation of social hierarchies and the suspension of formal school conventions afforded by the residential experience. As such the field study centre becomes an ‘escape’ from the normal social structure in which relationships transform, but I also suggest that some transformations potentially carry back to school. The adults (both teachers and Tutors) stressed that social benefits of residential fieldwork were manifested beyond the actual visit, although there were mixed views from the students about the likelihood of this.

N. Gee / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (2012) 208–215

215

Within my broader analysis of transforming relationships, I suggest that the concepts of identity and power underpin events, with the teachers adopting different and multiple identities. These identities evolved throughout the week although for each teacher there were personal boundaries in relation to their usual classroom persona. Mr Halls exhibited the largest deviation in behaviour from his usual teacher identity, appearing far more ‘relaxed’ and ‘human’ than his students anticipated. He was strategically astute in persistently and actively pursuing multiple objectives for the trip, targeting his curricular-related aims at the Centre Tutors, whilst personally managing interactions with the students with the aim of gelling the group. The more egalitarian, informal and jovial relationships were viewed positively by most students, interpreted as ‘supportive’ behaviour (Creton et al., 1989) and felt to have potential permanent impacts on the social climate (Mainhard et al., 2011) back in the classroom. I suggest that this ethnographic research fills gaps in the research literature by addressing issues around the diffuse social benefits of residential fieldwork on teacher–student relationships and by focusing upon insights and understandings from multi-sensory participation. By sharing embodied practices, my own experiences assisted in developing a shared empathy with my informants (such that I too felt bored, cold, buoyed by camaraderie). These emotions may not have been visible by non-participant observation and assisted me in developing meanings and explanations. Furthermore, adopting this immersed approach facilitated my assimilation into the evolving temporary community and assisted in removing barriers between myself as researcher and the trip participants which was crucial given the relatively short and intense timeframe. My research also reveals that ‘condensed fieldwork’ (Walker, 1974) is viable with ethnographic research, which has traditionally been associated with prolonged periods of immersion in a new culture (Delamont, 1992). Building further upon this research there is scope to investigate manifestations of altered behaviours towards the end of the week, linked to notions of reintegration prior to the return to the structural setting (Turner, 1969). More broadly, there is potential for further consideration of the longer term impacts of residential fieldwork on teacher–student relationships, whilst there are also gaps for further ethnographic studies which consider the cognitive and affective impacts of fieldwork, potentially also adopting a condensed timeframe (Jeffrey & Troman, 2004). References Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based excursions: School students' perceptions of learning in natural environments. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 11, 218–236. Beames, S., & Atencio, M. (2008). Building social capital through outdoor education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 8, 99–112. Bell, D. (2005). The value and importance of Geography. Teaching Geography, 30, 12–13. Besenyei, L., Watkin, G., & Oliver, K. (2004). An evaluation of the educational effectiveness of fieldwork within Environmental Science Awards at the University of Wolverhampton. CELT learning and teaching projects. University of Wolverhampton http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/3694, accessed on 14 October, 2011 Boyle, A., Conchie, S., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., et al. (2007). Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31, 299–317. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill. Creton, H., Wubbels, T., & Hooyermayers, H. (1989). Escalated disorderly situations in the classroom and the improvement of these situations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(3), 205–215. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207–234. Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings. London: Falmer Press. den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407–442. Dillon, J., Morris, M., O'Donnell, L., Reid, A., Rickinson, M., & Scott, W. (2005). Engaging and learning with the outdoors — The final report of the outdoor classroom in a rural context action research project. England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Farnham, M., & Mutrie, N. (1997). The potential benefits of outdoor development for children with special needs. British Journal of Special Education, 24, 31–38. Frazer, E. (1999). The problems of communitarian politics: Unity and conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives. UK: Polity Press. Hammersley, M. (1984). The ethnography of schooling: Methodological issues. Chester: The Bemrose Press. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography. Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Jeffrey, B., & Troman, G. (2004). Time for ethnography. British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 535–548. Lambert, D., & Balderstone, D. (2010). Learning to teach Geography in the secondary school. Abingdon: Routledge. Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students' view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307–319. Mainhard, M. T., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2011). Coercive and supportive teacher behaviour: Within- and across-lesson associations with the classroom social climate. Learning and Instruction, 21, 345–354. Manzanal, R., Barreiro, L., & Jimenez, M. (1999). Relationships between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes towards environmental protection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 431–453. Mygind, E. (2009). A comparison of childrens' statements about social relations and teaching in the classroom and in the outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9, 151–169. Nundy, S. (1999). The fieldwork effect: The role and impact of fieldwork in the upper primary school. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8, 190–198. Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage. Purdie, N., Neill, J., & Richards, G. (2002). Australian identity and the effect of an outdoor education programme. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 32–39. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D., et al. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. England: Field Studies Council. Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Van Gennep, A. (1960[1909]). Rites of passage, trans. M. Vizedom and G. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Walker, R. (1974). The conduct of educational case study: Ethics, theory and procedures, SAFARI Innovation Evaluation Research and the Problem of Control. Norwich: CARE University of East Anglia.