Durdle Door Coast Trip:
The first field trip was to study coastal processes and features at Durdle Door in Dorset. This site was then compared with another site at Studland a few miles away to compare the features.
Data collected by the students included:
- A beach profile using ranging poles & a clinometer
- Wave frequency
- Wave length
- Wave height
- Wind speed
- Wind direction
- Beach composition using a transect line & callipers
- Movement of beach material, by studying long shore drift
Lamb Brook River Trip:
The second field trip was to the Lamb Brook river basin, at Wooley near to the city of Bath. The site is only a few miles away from the school. The features and processes of the river change along it's course, so it was an ideal site to collect coursework data at various points along the basin. This enabled the students to compare upper, middle & lower course data, and relate their findings to their knowledge of rivers which was being studied at school.
Data collected by the students included:Wetted Perimeter
- Velocity
- Bedload
- River Profile using ranging poles & a clinometer
- Biodiversity Sample
- Chemical & Ph testing
Please click on the following links to download the risk assessments for each trip:
Below are some reflections of both the field trips, written by the Bath University PGCE Students:
1. SUBJECT KNOWLEDGE
· It was good to see sites, examples of topics, level of work sheets and the amount of data collected
· The students seemed well prepared and they knew what they had to do. They had notes with them
· Although the methodology for data collection could be looked at (coasts), it will be relevant for students to know about survey measures for future coursework. The process was more important than the results
· Very helpful to improve our fieldwork skills e.g. we refreshed coastal subject knowledge (students helped us)
2. AS STUDENTS
· The students became more familiar with the equipment but this was difficult at first
· Some students seemed to be losing interest towards the end
· Had to keep reiterating to students why they were doing the fieldwork. Also the importance of the experience in regards to their coursework, and as case studies for their examinations
· Some students often needed lots of guidance and instructions & could have done with additional time to prepare and reflect on the experience
· Noisy girls squealing over insects!
3. RISKS/SAFETY/MANAGEMENT
The risk, safety and management issues that we identified for the Durdle Door and Studland fieldwork included:
· Cliff at Durdle Door
· Students in the sea at Durdle Door
· Steep, slippery steps down to Durdle door.
· Possibility of bombs in sand dunes (this was unexpected)
· Flashers-nudist beach
The risk assessment for this fieldtrip covered the issues that we have identified and suggested ways to mitigate these potential problems; on debriefing the fieldwork we made a number of observations.
1. At the cliff, Durdle Door, students were instructed not to get too close to the cliff edge – we liked the 2 metre limit. However, as the students were gathered around they were closer than 2 metres.
2. The students went into the sea at Durdle Door to do the pebble task. It was felt that this was quite a steep reach and some of the students were unaware of how to use the throw line. It was thought that maybe a demonstration of how to use the throw line would reduce the risk of anything serious happening.
The risk/safety and management issues that we identified for the Lam valley fieldwork included:
· Farm slurry (slippery surfaces in the farm yard)
· The possibility of catching Weil’s disease from the river water
· Barbed wire, brambles and electric fences
· Bull in the field and cattle in the farm yard
· Stuck in mud in the river (loss of Wellingtons)
· Height of river water
· Ongoing risk assessment due to unanticipated disturbance of a wasps nest resulting in students being stung
· Country roads (driving and walking)
· Appropriate footwear and waterproof clothing
The risk assessment for the fieldwork addressed all of these issues and suggested ways to mitigate these potential problems.
In debriefing the fieldwork we made a number of observations
1. all students should have washed their hands prior to eating their lunch (mainly the girls did as they used the farm’s toilet) to reduce occurrence of Weil’s disease. However alcohol gel was provided
2. A couple of students were wearing jeans and once they had got wet (which a number of them did) this meant that they were wet for the remainder of the day.
3. We observed the on going risk assessment through the handling of the incident in which the students were stung by wasps. From this we now understand that not all risks can be anticipated and that there is a need to be ready for whatever the fieldtrip may throw at us.
4. ROLE OF THE GROUP LEADER
We noted and were impressed by a number of important roles that the group leader played.
· Prior and ongoing safety management (safety briefings were repeated and given in short chunks ensuring that students were listening)
· Permission for access to land and ensuring access on the day (e.g. by checking fences beforehand)
· Timings – keeping to time, keeping the pace of the work going, used prior experience
· Collecting data from students as they completed data collection at each site to protect it
· Boosting morale (e.g. tea and cakes)
· Keeping students focused on tasks, providing an overview (e.g. whole group q&a/ discussion)
· Very well prepared and organised
5. FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FIELDWORK
Coasts
- More preparation prior to fieldtrip to make the most of the time
- More time needed at each location
- Good variety of tasks to refer to in follow up work.
- Sand dunes (Studland)
- Data could include vegetation data
- Time – balance between travel and fieldwork (too much travelling?)
Rivers - Could ask for more detail e.g.
- Describe sample site
- field sketch to allow for comparison back in class
