This literature review examines learning on field trips through a constructivist lens. It discusses key areas like technological, environmental and learning (TEL), social theory, boundary objects, distributed cognition and the benefits of field trips. While past research on field trips had a positivist focus on memory and motivation, this review argues for a qualitative, observational approach using video to understand how social interaction and mobile devices influence knowledge construction. It aims to address gaps in understanding how mobile devices impact collaborative learning activities during postgraduate field trips.

1. LEARNING, SOCIAL THEORY, FIELD
TRIPS AND MOBILE DEVICES: A
LITERATURE REVIEW
Nicola Beddall-Hill
Twitter: CityMobileAngel
Nicola.beddall.1@city.ac.uk

2. Background to research
Studentship
supported by ESRC
as part of TLRP TEL
programme and
attached to the
Ensemble project.
Focus upon learning
with mobile devices
in the ‘wild’. Using a
head mounted
camera to observe
knowledge
construction during
collaborative
activities.
Clip from Coniston Field trip 2009 using a head
mounted camera

3. Introduction: Review of literature
• An interdisciplinary approach to investigate
complex learning processes on field trips
• Draws on a variety of disciplines
• Different epistemological and ontological traditions
makes comparison difficult
• This work is situated within a constructivist
framework
• Exploration of social theories applied STS,
specifically in relation to artefacts. does not
necessarily influence behaviour
• The paper reviews the key domains bearing upon
teaching and learning around fieldwork

4. Learning
• TEL: How do learners learn with technology?
• TEL has a strong positivist legacy
• But it ignores the influence of social practices
• Instead social perspectives portray knowledge as
emergent, arising from social practice and thus
constructed rather than ‘found’.
• Now dominate in TEL, advocate learning through
different
• Active experimentation, personal or through shared
construction of knowledge and social interaction
(Vygotsky, 1986; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This study
will focus on the later where individuals learn through
the dialogue created in social interaction and
collaborative activity. An appropriate theoretical framing
for analysis for this may come from social theory.

5. Social theory

6. Extension on boundary objects
• Deeper reading around boundary objects
• Original article by Star & Griesemer (1989)
• Cover a variety of disciplines
• Majority use an ethnographic approach
• HIGHLY detailed often engaging in months of observations
and interviews
• Most have a theoretical basis in their discipline– such as
organisational theory and use boundary objects as a tool to
explore interactions.
• But few make explicit how they revealed boundary objects
• Many use boundary objects at a surface level not fully
respecting the concept’s depth and information
infrastructures surrounding them (Trompette & Vinck, 2009)
• Often is not clear what kind of boundary object uncovered

7. New section on Distributed Cognition
• Roots in cognitive science
• Ethnographic methods

8. Pedagogical benefits of field trips
• Unique and complex
• Help develop understanding and subject
knowledge.
• Rite of passage in the training of geoscientists
(Maskall and Stokes, 2008).
• Boyle et al, (2003) believe they play a pivotal
role in realizing student integration on a social
and academic level.
• Normally a positive experience but can be
unsettling (Fuller et al, 2006)
• But little pedagogical evidence to support these
views

9. learning on field trips
• Research largely positivist.
• Earlier studies initially on memory and recall
(Mackenzie and White, 1982)
• Then motivational aspects (Kern and Carpenter,
1986).
• Fieldwork is a social activity and interaction can
aid the construction of knowledge and meaning,
shared experiences with peers and experts can
instill behaviour and beliefs inherent in their
discipline but this approach has received little
attention (Maskall and Stokes, 2008).

10. Mobile devices & field trips

11. Conclusion
Gaps in the area:
1.Quantitative data and a positivist approach
dominance: use instead qualitative
observational data utilising a head mounted
camera (Beddall-Hill and Raper 2009).
2.Few postgraduate field trips.
3.Limited research on social interaction during
field trips and none on the impact mobile
devices have on the learning activities and
processes or visa versa within this setting.

12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was carried out as part of an ESRC
studentship at City University, London, attached to the
ESRC & EPSRC TLRP TEL project ‘Ensemble’. The
author would like to thank her family and Victoria
Crump for their assistance and Professor Jonathan
Raper for his comments on an earlier draft.

13. • By viewing the devices as artefacts, which
have influence and are influenced by the setting
this study will aim to uncover their pedagogical
benefit and also compare the use of personal
devices versus brought teaching devices with a
view to feedback into future curriculum design