Field courses are an important component of a wide range of university degrees. Although our experiences are restricted to biology field courses, we hope that some of our observations will resonate with teachers in other disciplines. The fundamental choice when designing the learning outcomes of a field course is whether to focus on one particular topic (or area, subject, habitat and so on) or to explore a range of topics. There exists a trade-off between providing students with a deeper understanding of a narrower subject-area versus more superficial experiences but with greater exposure over a broader subject-area. Of course, this dichotomy is true in the classroom too, but the issue seems to crystallise under field conditions where extracting maximum benefit from a limited period is desirable.

We were inspired to write this article after running an annual week-long biodiversity field course, LSM4263 "Field Studies in Biodiversity", to Tioman Island, Malaysia, in July 2006. In previous years, students would be divided into groups that each concentrated on a particular habitat for the duration of the field course and conducted pertinent thematic in-depth studies, for instance a mock Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This year, however, we decided to expose all the students to a wider range of learning activities by running mini-projects in four habitats (i.e. freshwater, marine, mangrove and terrestrial). The class of 43 was divided into eight groups, which were rotated around the four habitats in pairs. Each habitat had two Teaching Assistants assigned to it, taking a group each for the day's activities. The lecturers circulated among groups or among habitats as and where additional help/supervision was required.

From informal discussions with students and staff, we realised that there were advantages and disadvantages to both field courses that "generalise" and those that "specialise"-hence the title of this article. Both scenarios are worth examining in detail.

To generalise

A typical 'generalist' scenario would aim to expose students to a range of environments (this would also hold true for other disciplines). This exposure will likely be short (e.g. just one day per environment). The benefits include: (a) students get hands-on experience in a range of habitats; (b) they are introduced to a diversity of field techniques (without the burden of being expected to become very proficient at them); and (c) more variety in activities and locations, making it overall more experiential and stimulating for students.

Figure 1. An evening exursion into the forest to explore nocturnal fauna

Experience a range of habitats

It seems a shame to spend an entire 'general' field course focussing on just one specific aspect. If students were fortunate enough to undertake many field courses, this would be less of an issue, however, the great majority of them will likely do just one residential field course, if any, during their undergraduate years. Thus, it seems a wasted opportunity if they do not get equal exposure to the various habitats available and all the ecological and biodiversity components normally associated with them. This will give students a broader knowledge base, which they can then use for further investigations if the desire/opportunity arises.

Learn a range of techniques

This is probably more applicable to biology/environmental type field courses where there are specific scientific techniques for conducting research in particular habitats and field conditions. If the objective is to survey the fauna or flora, then the methods used in woodland are quite different to those employed in the sea or in a freshwater stream. Although students will not become experts at these techniques in just one day, they will at least be more aware that numerous approaches exist and will have a foundation on which to build upon.

Have more stimulation and fun

The importance of this should not be underestimated. Under field conditions, tedium and dissatisfaction can get exaggerated and escalate rapidly. The intensive nature of a field course means little opportunity for the student to escape and recuperate (e.g. having to go into the field at odd hours of the night to observe nocturnally active creatures or when tidal conditions are favourable). If a few students really do not like the task they are doing, but have to continue regardless for a number of days, they may get restless, distracted, and disruptive. This can in turn have a knock-on effect to the rest of the group who might otherwise be quite enthusiastic or at least content. It also raises health and safety issues as unhappy students may get careless in the field as they are perhaps not concentrating as hard as they could be. Changing environments each day provides little opportunity for students to get bored or fed up.

To specialise

The principle argument for concentrating on a single habitat is that it is possible to: (a) really learn some skills in specific field techniques; (b) learn much more about the ecology and biology of the habitat; (c) collect better quality data; and (d) it makes the exercise more 'real'.

Figure 2. LMS4263 field course 2006 instructors and participants

"Really learn some skills"

This includes getting involved in the design and implementation of a study/experiment/survey, and, in our case, learning to identify relevant organisms. A student working on one topic for a few days will probably gain some real ability, at least regarding execution and understanding of the study and techniques. Designing surveys and identifying organisms might be more that can be conveyed in a few days. However, the student will at least feel they have learnt something in detail.

Learn more ecology and biology

By focussing on just one habitat, the student should gather a greater understanding of its characteristics and nuances. As long as the knowledge and teaching skills are present, there is a real opportunity to explain in detail how a particular habitat functions. There is more time to find out how to identify species and learn about their ecology, behaviour and role in that ecosystem.

Collect better data

If the first day is used purely for training, there is an opportunity for students to subsequently gather some real, usable data. When analysing the data, they will know exactly how they were collected including any additional issues that need to be considered. If students have to write a report, they can have more faith in the data (as opposed to relying on that of other students when using pooled data).

Experience 'real' fieldwork

During longer trips, it is possible to undertake larger and more realistic projects. A classic technique for capturing students' attention is to give them a mission (e.g. conducting an EIA). The 'to specialise' approach lends itself much more to this type of activity as it reflects how rapid EIAs are often done in reality (i.e. a number of specialists concentrate on their own habitats and complete the work within a few days). There is no real life scenario where one group studies all habitats at a rate of one habitat per day.

To compromise

Is there a middle ground between the two extremes presented above that can exploit the advantages of both approaches? What if students do not spend all their time in one habitat nor do they spend very short periods experiencing all of them (four in the case of our field course)? For example, an alternative may be to split their time between two habitats. Unfortunately, as is often the case with compromises, this seems to capture few of the benefits of both options-the learning outcomes are much less clear cut. Another potential compromise is to take the 'specialist' route but make an effort to briefly expose students to the other habitats through an additional single day set aside for guided walks and exploration. This would essentially be the 'specialist' learning outcome with added value! Alternatively, spending more time preparing students before setting off will enable them to 'hit the ground running' when they arrive, thus getting more from the generalist approach (e.g. they could attend pertinent lectures followed by laboratory sessions and practice on short half-day fieldtrips/practicals before the residential one). Students' backgrounds should also be considered.

Conclusion

The final trade-off will probably be based upon goal minutiae that push the decision one way or another. For instance, there might be one special skill or topic that is considered essential that can only be incorporated if one particular approach is adopted. These more detailed learning outcomes can sometimes be at odds with one another and priorities need to be worked out. The whole exercise can become a somewhat 'chicken and egg' scenario-which comes first, the overall thrust of the course or its finer objectives? Of course, students' previous knowledge levels will be a major factor, with those without any biology or ecology background likely to gain from the generalised approach and learn much from the broader exposure, while those with a stronger foundation in biology and ecology will gain more from a specialised and deeper approach. Also, taking into account students' expectations further muddies the water as these will undoubtedly be highly diverse. Perhaps, both approaches could be adopted within the same field course by separating students into two groups depending on their backgrounds, aptitudes and attitudes. The preparatory phase will be important towards formation of the two groups, one of generalists and the other of specialists. With such exposure, students are ultimately given the choice of the learning level that they desire. This will require more resources as it essentially translates to running two courses simultaneously, each with its own emphasis and own group of students. The desired learning outcomes of either approach are offered and students select what they wish to acquire.