This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 19 December 2014, At: 22:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Creating Field Trip-Based Learning CommunitiesEmily Skop aa Department of Geography , University of Colorado , Colorado Springs, Colorado, USAPublished online: 28 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Emily Skop (2009) Creating Field Trip-Based Learning Communities, Journal of Geography, 107:6, 230-235,DOI: 10.1080/00221340802620164

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221340802620164

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Creating Field Trip-Based Learning CommunitiesEmily Skop

ABSTRACTIn this article, I propose using the “fieldtrip-based learning community” asa way to foster informal interactionamong students and faculty. Byincorporating students into the designand implementation of a field trip,faculty can engineer an environmentwhere student and teacher encourageand learn from one another in anenvironment not tied to any particularclass or for any course credit. Thestrategy operates on the premise thatfrequent and regular contact of facultywith students outside the classroomenvironment results in opportunitiesfor both groups to not only becomeactively involved in learning but alsoto see themselves as resources foreach other’s personal and educationalgrowth and development. Maximizingthe out-of-class academic experience isparamount.

Key Words: learning communities, fieldtrips, field-based learning, ethnic geography

Emily Skop is an assistant professor inthe Department of Geography at Universityof Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado,USA.

INTRODUCTIONIn November 2005 I began a yearlong adventure that became one of the most

gratifying experiences of my academic career thus far. For the “Race, Ethnicity,and Place” Conference hosted by Texas State University-San Marcos in November2006, I organized and led a field trip on the social and spatial dynamics ofracialization in Austin. With limited knowledge of the geography of race andracism in the city, I asked students to help with the design and implementation ofthe field trip.

Among the many rewards that resulted from this project, including a featuredocumentary on the local PBS station, organizing the field trip, “Ghettos,Enclaves, and Citadels in Austin,” serendipitously fostered an alternative wayto engage with diverse students. Together we created a collaboration in whichwe encouraged and learned from one another in an environment not tied to anyparticular class or for any course credit. In this article I describe how I developedthis “field trip-based learning community” outside the classroom setting andarticulate how other instructors might incorporate this strategy into their ownteaching agendas.

USING FIELD TRIPS TO CREATE LEARNING COMMUNITIESAs a growing number of campuses focus on restructuring learning environ-

ments to support college students’ learning and personal development, thelearning community approach has gained recognition. As a result, the literature onlearning communities has skyrocketed in the past several years with a growingnumber of institutions bringing students together in environments outside theclassroom (Akers and Dunn 2002). Learning community supporters contend thatthe purpose of college is not to transfer knowledge but to design environments andexperiences that help students craft knowledge and solve problems for themselves(Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University1998).

What exactly is a learning community? Cross (1998) sees learning communitiesas groups of students and faculty seeking to maximize human interaction andencouraging active and experiential learning outside the classroom. In an effortto clarify the concept, Wilson and Ryder (1996) identify six specific characteristicsof a dynamic learning community:

1. Distributed control, which means the community is bigger than anysingle member, yet it encompasses the perspectives of all members, andall rules and conventions are negotiable among the group;

2. Commitment to the generation and sharing of new knowledge whereeverybody learns by sharing, listening, imitating, and watching;

3. Flexible and negotiated learning activities in which the group may havemultiple goals that are agreed upon and then commonly shared, ordiscarded, throughout the membership;

4. Autonomous community members who have a certain amount ofleeway to direct their own activities and make decisions, to accom-modate variations and differences among community members, andto ensure that the system does not devolve into a single controlledperspective;

Journal of Geography 107: 230–235C©2008 National Council for Geographic Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

22:

44 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Creating Field Trip-Based Learning Communities

5. High levels of dialogue, interaction, and collabo-ration drive the feedback loops that lead to newlearning and sustained communities;

6. A shared goal, problem, or project that brings acommon focus and incentive for a group to worktogether in the first place.

These attributes combine to address the needs of bothstudents and teachers for a deeper sense of communityand belonging within the academic setting. The idea is toeliminate fixed boundaries between the intellectual andsocial lives of students and faculty. In these seamlesslearning environments, both students and teachers utilizetheir life experiences to develop meaningful intellectualinteractions outside the classroom.

When referring to learning communities, most of theliterature stresses residence-based programs. But what Idiscovered in my own experience is that field-based learn-ing fits well within the learning community concept. Afterall, field-based instruction typically combines academicinquiry with off-campus activities that enable studentsto learn by doing. The literature points to innumerablebenefits of field-based learning, but particularly relevantto this discussion is that field study is an effective way tobroaden, extend, and deepen the intellectual content of un-dergraduate instruction by integrating theory and practicein a particular subject area outside the classroom (Davis2001). Field-based learning increases students’ motivationto engage in academic work through the experience ofapplied knowledge. Field study also encourages studentsto develop their skills as independent investigators. Atthe same time, informal discussions with faculty whoincorporate field-based learning into their courses reportthat the practice has enhanced their teaching experienceand improved the quality of their instruction.

The benefits of field-based learning for geography in-struction have been widely documented, oftentimes in thisjournal. F. J. Monkhouse (1955) articulated the value of“acquiring a pair of stout boots” as a way to understandspatial and temporal processes (quoted in DeLyser andStarrs 2001) and underscored:

Field-work is essentially personal obser-vation and recording; it brings reality togeographical study; it helps the geographerto acquire his all-important understanding“eye for country”; and thus it enricheshis descriptive and explanatory powers.(Monkhouse 1955; quoted in DeLyser andStarrs 2001)

Indeed, field-based learning makes geography come tolife, placing everything into a context that helps studentsgrasp how geography shapes the world around them(Humble 2007). Direct observation and hands-on learningassociated with field-based instruction also raise students’interest level and improve their understanding and long-term retention of targeted concepts (Tueth and Wikle 2000;

Grundy-Warr, Malam, and Songguang 2006). Rice andBulman (2001) explained in general terms other benefits ofgeography fieldwork, and chapters in Estaville and Rosen’s(1997) anthology included detailed discussions of usingfieldwork in teaching ethnic geography.

Traditionally, field-based learning takes one of threeforms: independent study in which students work on theirown in a private or public organization, agency, or office;field-based academic courses that combine formal course-work with research at designated field sites; or fieldworkassignments in which field exercises are incorporated intolecture or seminar courses (Davis 2001). In each of thesecases, students receive academic credit for their fieldwork.What is distinct about the idea I am proposing is the creationof a field trip-based learning community outside theclassroom that is not tied to any particular class or for anycourse credit. Instead, I suggest using the field trip-basedlearning community as a way to foster increased informalinteraction among diverse students and faculty. The entirestrategy operates on the premise that frequent and regularcontact of faculty with students outside the classroomresults in a number of opportunities for both groups to notonly become actively involved in learning but also to beginto see themselves as resources for each other’s personal andeducational growth and development. Maximizing the out-of-class academic experience is paramount for developinglearning communities.

GALVANIZING DIVERSE STUDENT INTERESTBecause one of the goals of learning communities is to

foster a sense of belonging, the first and most important stepis to consider the group dynamic. In general, groups of fouror five members work best, as they increase each member’sopportunity to express their opinions and participateactively (Davis 2001, 151). This optimum size also increasesthe ability of all members to discuss and negotiate therules and conventions of the learning community amongthe group and to ensure that one or two people do notmonopolize control of the activities.

In my case, students from my previous classes provedto be the best pool from which to recruit. I thoughtthree students in particular would want to participate inthis experiment if given the opportunity, even withoutany foreseeable “benefits” like receiving course credit.The students had each displayed the highest levels ofdiligence, enthusiasm, and creativity in my classes andwere frequent visitors during my office hours. Two ofthe students had taken my upper-division course onRace, Ethnicity, and Place, which also meant that theyalready had a certain degree of knowledge and interestconcerning the social and spatial dynamics of racialization.The students were not necessarily the best-performingstudents in class, but each exhibited qualities that couldensure their success, if fostered in a different learningmilieu.

I began the process of galvanizing their interests. The veryfirst time I proposed the project to the three students, each

231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

22:

44 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Emily Skop

expressed a desire to participate, even though the field tripwas nearly a year away. I saved the fourth slot for a graduatestudent who was working as my research intern and whowanted to play a part in organizing the field trip. I was thefaculty person in the five-member group. Thus, our fieldtrip-based learning community was born and included ayoung, female Hispanic student from the Texas Rio GrandeValley who majored in Plan II Honors; an older femalestudent who had lived in Austin for more than ten years(she was adopted, so she did not know her racial/ethnicbackground) and who was an American Studies major;an older male Caucasian student who decided to returnto school to complete a degree, was new to Austin, andwho double-majored in political science and geography; ayoung female black-Mexican graduate student focusing onGeography; and me, an older female Caucasian geographyprofessor who had lived in some of the most diverse cities inthe country, for example, Washington, D.C., Miami, Florida,Phoenix, Arizona, and Austin, Texas.

When I began the process of bringing together a group ofstudents to help me organize the field trip, I was unawareof the specific characteristics or pedagogical reasoning fordynamic learning communities. Still, I did know I wantedto include students from diverse racial/ethnic backgroundsin the project, given that the field trip would deal expresslywith race and racism. Other social characteristics thatdefine group cohesion, such as gender, class, residentialhistory, and immigration status, also figured into mydecisions. In this way, I hoped to ensure that each groupmember, including me, felt as comfortable as possible aswe supported, encouraged, and assisted one another incompleting the project. At the end of the selection process,this highly diverse, interdisciplinary team was driven byour common interests in uncovering and understanding therole of space in reifying disempowerment, disadvantage,and exploitation at the same time that it also reinforcespower, privilege, and prestige.

ORGANIZING THE STUDENT-LED FIELD TRIPIn learning communities, instructors are supposed to

act as enablers, rather than leaders (Cross 1998). Theirresponsibility is to provide a shared goal, problem, orproject that brings a common focus and incentive forstudents and faculty to work together (Healey 2005; LeHeron, Baker, and McEwen 2006). Community membersthen have a certain amount of room to direct their ownactivities and to accommodate variations and differencesamong community members. This individual latitudeensures that the system does not devolve into a singlecontrolled perspective, which some would argue occurs inthe formal classroom setting (Wilson and Ryder 1996). Theunderlying theory is that by engaging students outside theclassroom, instructors can engineer environments in whichstudents and instructors learn from one another. This ideaof a democratic education teaches community and createsplaces of “liberating mutuality where teacher and studenttogether work in partnership” (hooks 2003, xv).

Again, without prior knowledge of successful learningcommunities, I knew that my first responsibility to thegroup was to articulate some vital issues from which wecould then collaboratively brainstorm. Because the field tripwas still months away, I began this brainstorming processvia e-mail. I provided a copy of the initial abstract that I hadearlier submitted to conference organizers:

Fieldtrip Title: Ghettos, Enclaves, andCitadels in AustinFieldtrip Abstract: The purpose of this field-trip is to provide a geographical perspectiveconcerning the social and spatial dynamicsof racialization in the Austin MetropolitanArea. We will investigate in-depth casestudies of particular racial/ethnic groupsin specific racial/ethnic communities andlandscapes to show how place is morethan a passive backdrop for the negotiationof racial/ethnic identities. Throughout thefield trip, we will focus on particular issuesassociated with racial/ethnic diversity, likespatial segregation and social stratification.The fieldtrip starts in East Austin, an areaknown for its Latino and African-Americancommunities, crosses over I-35 to a highlydiverse, yet gentrifying neighborhood inSouth Austin, and moves west to West Lake,an area dominated by white non-Latinoresidents.

Though I had sketched out the basic objectives of thefield trip, which did not change once I placed the field tripinto the hands of the learning community, clearly there wasmuch room for discussion about the scope of the field trip,its purpose, and the activities to be included.

After receiving several interesting e-mail messages fromthe students, our first gathering occurred at a coffee shopabout three months in advance of the field trip to beginto develop our ideas. It became clear to each of us thatwe could organize in-depth case studies of particularracial/ethnic groups in specific Austin communities in avariety of ways, but we agreed that covering a transect ofthe city’s inhabitants was essential. Although we appearedto have multiple goals, we recognized the need to be flexibleat this stage of the project.

At this meeting, we also negotiated and agreed upona list of rules and conventions that would guide ourcommunity (Davis 2001). We established that each memberwould:

� Prepare before each meeting (contact potentialspeakers, read relevant work, etc.).

� Complete any task that the group assigned.� Attend all meetings and arrive on time.� Actively participate during the sessions.� Help promote one another’s learning and success.

232

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

22:

44 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Creating Field Trip-Based Learning Communities

� Provide assistance, support, and encouragementto group members.

At our next meeting two weeks later, I presented apotential field trip outline based on our e-mail and face-to-face exchanges. This conversation was the first of manyexchanges where we would discover just how collaborativethe field trip planning had become. For instance, while I hadknown that African Americans had created a vibrant com-munity in East Austin during the 1940s and 1950s, two of thestudents identified key institutions and establishments theywanted to include as stops during the field trip. Anotherstudent became fixated on urban renewal projects currentlytaking place around a local power plant and contacted animportant local community activist to speak to our groupon the day of the field trip. While I had outlined somebroad objectives and goals in the initial study abstract, thestudents found ways to embody these ideas for the fieldtrip through the local landscape and residents.

After further negotiation and discussion, we created aplan of action through which we identified who would dowhat and when. We structured the tasks so that each groupmember did an equal amount of labor and made significantcontributions to the outcomes. Sometimes we worked inpairs, other times individually. We were all involved in theentire process of project planning, from organizing guestspeakers and field trip stops to creating a handout to giveto participants. We also agreed that each of us would beready and willing to act as the official guide on the day ofthe field trip because we would be divided into two vanswith no guarantee that we would be able to stay together forthe entire outing. This strategy placed added responsibilityand pressure on each of us to learn and know all of thematerial as we progressed through the next two months inpreparation for the field trip.

Then, just days after that meeting, one of the executiveproducers of our local PBS station phoned me. The title ofour field trip, which he had found on the “Race, Ethnicity,and Place Conference” Web site, piqued his curiosity. Hewanted to turn our excursion into a documentary for alocal program called Austin Now. He would produce anddirect the show and hoped to bring along a camera crewduring the field trip to capture the dynamics of the groupand film the locations we would visit.

Both the students and I were thrilled about this possiblePBS documentary. Knowing that our peers were relyingon us was a powerful motivator, as was the fact that wewere all committed to the generation and sharing of newknowledge in our particular community. The news aboutthe documentary became a strong incentive for keepingon task over the next several weeks. During this time, Iwatched as students applied different concepts, ideas, andmethods they learned inside and outside the classroom tothe field trip, and we discussed the inherent problems andinadequacies in taking these ideas and concepts for granted.I also used our gatherings to share my own researchexperiences, including both the benefits and the drawbacks.

Our exchanges provided sophisticated dialogue, interac-tion, and collaboration expected in a dynamic learningcommunity.

Along with a detailed itinerary outlining specific stopsand points of interest, our field trip packet for participantsincluded a map of our route through downtown Austin.We also provided historic photographs and maps, as wellas contemporary images, to illustrate how place plays acritical role in the negotiation of racial/ethnic identities.Ideally, participants would flip through these materials aswe drove from point to point. We later gave copies of thesefield trip packets to the Austin History Museum for archivalpurposes (Skop et al. 2006).

To further emphasize particular learning outcomes andthe theoretical implications of the field trip, we includedtwo readings on segregation and white privilege writtenby geographers. We did not want the participants to readthese materials during the field trip. Our hope was that byproviding the readings, participants would later return toideas most relevant to our explorations of the geography ofrace and racism and use the concepts in their own teachingor research.

Two weeks before the conference, we did our final run-through of the field trip. Unlike our previous meetings,which typically ran about one to two hours, on thisexcursion we spent the entire day together. From the firstmoment that we all crammed into my car, I saw that mystudents had bonded with one another, although they didnot necessarily know each other before the project began.My thoughts crystallized around the realization that I hadenabled this group to come together and that the fieldtrip-based learning community might be useful as a moregeneral learning strategy.

LEADING THE FIELD TRIPOn the morning of the field trip, about twenty conference

participants filled the vans we had reserved for the day.Somewhat to our disappointment, only the producer-director of the PBS documentary appeared; he had leftthe camera crew behind due to logistical problems. Hepromised us, however, that he would use this trip as ascouting mission and would eventually film our field trip.1

With all the participants gathered, two of the studentsjoined me in one van, and the other two students went withthe other. As we had agreed early on in the project, thismeant that each of us on our team was a guide, providinginformation and observations, pointing out key landmarks,describing important aspects of the contemporary land-scape, and outlining relevant facets of history. Our chiefgoal on the trip was to convey how white privilege andthe process of racialization intersect to create both spaces ofinclusion and exclusion.

When we came together at key field trip stops, I took thelead in articulating how place plays an important role inthe negotiation of racial/ethnic identities. The students alsointerjected their own observations at many points, therebygiving the participants diverse perspectives about Austin’s

233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

22:

44 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Emily Skop

racial landscapes. We frequently relied on our field trippacket and referred participants to particular informationand readings.

Midway through the field trip, when we stopped forlunch at one of South Austin’s most popular Tex-Mexrestaurants, I noticed that all of the student leaders were re-laxed as they spoke with participants. This interaction wasencouraging because most of the participants were facultywhose research the students had read in my class and inpreparation for this excursion. Unlike the formality that cancharacterize student-faculty conversations at professionalconferences, students and faculty both demonstrated asense of ease and confidence with one another.

As the day continued, participants repeatedly com-mented on how much they were enjoying the excursion. Notonly did they appreciate that the trip was well organizedbut they also felt that the students had extensive knowledgeabout essential topics related to race, ethnicity, and place.Some participants mentioned to the students the prospectof graduate school and even initiated recruiting pitches!

AFTER THE FIELD TRIP—REFLECTIONS ON THECONCEPT OF FIELD-BASED LEARNING COMMUNITY

Through my experience in arranging this field trip andthe enthusiasm that others showed for its outcomes, I cameto recognize and now firmly advocate creating field-basedlearning communities as an effective way to help liberateboth student and faculty thinking in critical, practical, andcreative directions. Although I did not have a name orpedagogical underpinning for this project when it began,I now realize that I was implementing the concept ofthe learning community, with a geographer’s twist, as wecreated and sustained our connections through field-basedactivities outside the classroom.

Upon reflection, I now understand the tremendousbenefits that can come from the field trip-based learningcommunity. Perhaps the best aspect of this strategy isthe ability to help break down barriers among teachers,researchers, and learners in numerous ways. In this en-vironment where everyone shares the consensual goal tosupport each other in learning, students are no longersimply “recipients of research” but become vital co-actors“in its production” (Healey 2005, quoted in Grundy-Warr,Malam and Songguang 2006). Instructors, too, becomeco-learners as new problems, unexpected issues, andalternative perspectives emerge through their interactionswith students in the field (Le Heron, Baker, and McEwen2006). The whole process requires learning how to adaptand evolve to local conditions and situations. Field trip-based learning communities also create milieus wherecreativity and innovation abound, traditional disciplinaryboundaries crossed, and social and civic responsibilitiespromoted. This blurring of boundaries fosters a senseof belonging and encourages alternative exchanges andconnections among students and faculty. In turn, thissense of community provides the foundation for ongoing

relationships, which then promotes student and facultydevelopment and success and student retention.

For scholars committed to issues of racism and inequal-ity and whose objective is to broaden the participationof underrepresented minority groups in geography (seeEstaville, Brown, and Caldwell 2006), this strategy maybe particularly useful because the field trip-based learningcommunity fosters a sense of appreciation of both diverseand multiple perspectives. These outcomes are especiallytrue if the enabler seeks out students with various back-grounds and experiences. When a diverse group comestogether, community members can then learn to respect thatknowledge materializes from a variety of sources—peopleof different backgrounds and information of different types.Learning community members can likewise develop theirown methods for testing proposed knowledge against avariety of standards and codifying that knowledge in waysthey can share with the group and across situations and time(Wilson and Ryder 1996). The significance of this diverseenvironment is that both students and faculty progressin their understanding, perhaps moving from black-and-white views of knowledge toward more sophisticatedinsights of how we come to know the world around us.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author is indebted to the other members of the field

trip-based learning community created at the Universityof Texas at Austin during the 2005–2006 school year.Through the deep commitment and incredible work of TaraBuentello, Michael Davis, Alisha Cloud, and Naya Jones,this project was highly successful.

NOTE1. The producer did fulfill his promise about a

month later, and, early the next year, an “AustinNow” documentary on the local PBS stationbriefly featured our field trip. Available fromhttp://www.klru.org/austinnow/archives/gentrification/index.php (accessed August 31, 2007).

REFERENCESAkers, C. R., and M. S. Dunn. 2002. Living/Learning

Communities: Annotated Bibliography. Athens: TheUniversity of Georgia. http://www.acuho.ohio-state.edu/resource%20center/Living-Learning.html(accessed August 31, 2007).

Austin Now. 2007. What is gentrification? A documen-tary. Austin, Texas: KLRU PBS. http://www.klru.org/austinnow/archives/gentrification/index.asp (accessedMarch 31, 2007).

234

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

22:

44 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Creating Field Trip-Based Learning Communities

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in theResearch University. 1998. Reinventing UndergraduateEducation: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities.Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching. http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/pres/boyer.nsf/673918d46fbf653e852565ec0056ff-3e/d955b61ffddd590a852565ec005717ae/$FILE/boyer.pdf (accessed August 31, 2007).

Cross, P. K. 1998. Why learning communities? Why now?About Campus 3 (3): 4–11.

Davis, B. G. 2001. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

DeLyser, D., and P. F. Starrs. 2001. Doing fieldwork.Geographical Review 91 (1–2): iv–viii.

Estaville, L. E., and C. J. Rosen. 1997. Teaching AmericanEthnic Geography. Washington, D.C.: National Councilfor Geographic Education.

Estaville, L. E., B. J. Brown, and S. Caldwell. 2006. Geog-raphy undergraduate program essentials: Placement.Journal of Geography 105 (3): 3–12.

Grundy-Warr, C., L. Malam, and H. Songguang. 2006.Mobile and ‘out of class’ teaching: Reflections onfield studies. Centre for Development of Teachingand Learning Newsletter 10 (3). http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/link/Nov2006/rtl2.htm (accessed November12, 2007).

Healey, M. 2005. Linking research and teaching to benefitstudent learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Educa-tion 29 (2): 183–201.

hooks, B. 2003. Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope.New York and London: Routledge.

Humble, K. 2007. Fieldwork: Introduction. http://www.geographyteachingtoday. org.uk/fieldwork/ (accessedOctober 28, 2007).

Le Heron, R., R. Baker, and L. McEwen. 2006. Co-learning: Re-linking research and teaching in geogra-phy. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 30 (1):77–87.

Rice, G. H., and T. L. Bulman. 2001. Fieldwork in theGeography Curriculum: Filling the Rhetoric-Reality Gap.Washington, D.C.: National Council for GeographicEducation.

Skop, E., T. Buentello, A. Cloud, M. Davis, and N.Jones. 2006. Ghettos, Enclaves, and Citadels inAustin: A Fieldtrip Guide. Austin, Texas (unpublishedmanuscript).

Tueth, M. W., and T. A. Wikle. 2000. The utility andorganization of a college field course: Examiningnational park management. Journal of Geography 99 (2):57–66.

Wilson, B., and M. Ryder. 1996. Dynamic learning com-munities: An alternative to designed instructionalsystems. Proceedings of selected research and de-velopment presentations at the 1996 National Con-vention of the Association for Educational Com-munications and Technology, Indianapolis, Indiana.http://carbon.cudenver.edu/∼mryder/ dlc.html (ac-cessed November 14, 2007).

235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

22:

44 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014