Teaching about circum-Arctic geology and geophysics within a single lecture (typically 1.5 h long with a 15 min break) is a challenging task and was aided by the student cohorts having a good geoscience background from their undergraduate studies. A particular challenge was to capture the most relevant and up-to-date information about this vast topic and to prepare the students for understanding other aspects of Arctic's structure and evolution during the rest of the course. In the first teaching year (2018), when the course was very short (10 d), the tour de force lecture presented what is known about the region's surface and subsurface by reviewing the latest knowledge and the key datasets used. A central role in this presentation was played by showing how an international circum-Arctic mapping project gathered most of the updated information held by the Arctic nations (Norway, Russia, USA, Canada, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark) for building geological, tectonic, and geophysical maps of the Arctic (Fig. 4; Gaina et al., 2011; Petrov et al., 2021). The students learned that collecting geoscientific data in the Arctic is difficult and expensive and that wide collaboration with other countries and scientists is essential for advancing the knowledge of this remote region.

The lecture also emphasized the important role of remote sensing data, and especially satellite data (including gravity and magnetic anomalies), for deciphering the Arctic crustal and lithospheric structure. In addition, it presented the role of the upper and lower mantle and their heterogeneities in the Arctic's tectonic and magmatic evolution and how mantle structures could be identified using tomographic models obtained from seismological data. With a field excursion organized later in the course, this foundational lecture briefly mentioned how new geophysical data contribute to refined tectonic models of Svalbard and the surrounding Barents Sea.

The pedagogical approach for the course was modified for subsequent years (2019, 2022, 2023, and 2024), when the course was offered for a longer period (6 weeks) and the students had more time to consult the recommended bibliography. The next iterations of the Arctic geology and geophysics lecture(s) explored the understanding of this region by presenting the main tectonic features according to their ages, from oldest (cratons) to the youngest (oceanic basins). Relevant methods for assessing their structure and ages, with an emphasis on geophysical methods, were presented, and, when possible, examples including Svalbard and surrounding regions were given. In a computer practical, the students were also introduced to the free application GeoMapApp (https://www.geomapapp.org, last access: 6 November 2024; Ryan et al., 2009) used to display and analyse geoscientific datasets. We made sure that the geological connections between land and sea and among various Arctic sub-regions were presented in the regional (and even) global context and that the latest published studies featured in the presentation, with many studies also included in the reading list. The lecture was usually wrapped up by informing the future Arctic scientists about the work in progress, the need for future studies, and the opportunities for student involvement in projects such as NOR-R-AM. Because there were several guest lecturers in attendance throughout the course, the students had the opportunity to discuss and ask more detailed questions about active research and outstanding questions.

Tectonics is a core theme of this course, and the various links between tectonic processes such as ocean basin opening, mountain building, subduction, sedimentary basin formation, and volcanism and magmatism (including rift- and mantle-plume-related events). The links to climatic, oceanographic, and biogeographic changes are mentioned throughout the lectures. Many of the students had already been introduced to the concept of plate tectonics; nonetheless, this module includes a set of introductory and more advanced lectures. Following on from a refresher about plate tectonics at the global scale, Arctic-specific tectonics were then delivered by dividing history into three time periods (which could be presented running either forwards or backwards in time), the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic. These three time periods cover the major Arctic tectonic events, including but not being limited to North Atlantic and Eurasia Basin opening and Eurekan deformation (Cenozoic), Amerasia Basin opening and Pacific subduction (Mesozoic), and Ellesmerian deformation (Paleozoic). These events were discussed in terms of their influence on the regional to local tectonic expressions and influence on sedimentation.

In addition to theory-based lectures, several hands-on computer tutorials about viewing, analysing, and modifying plate reconstructions were undertaken over 2–3 sessions. These tutorials are based on the widely used and open-source plate tectonics software GPlates (Müller et al., 2018; Boyden et al., 2011), which was installed either directly on the students' personal laptops or on the desktop machines in the UNIS computer lab. In addition to the default files shipped with GPlates, the students were provided with an Arctic dataset bundle (Senger and Shephard, 2023), which included vector and raster data specific to the Arctic and had been published in peer-reviewed articles by the wider Arctic community, which could be easily loaded into GPlates. The data include regional gravity and magnetics and derivatives (Saltus et al., 2011; Gaina et al., 2011), crustal thickness maps (Lebedeva-Ivanova et al., 2019), seismic tomography models (Schaeffer and Lebedev, 2013; Ritsema et al., 2011), and bathymetry (Jakobsson et al., 2012). The students were taught about the mathematical method to rotate rigid entities on a sphere; the Euler and finite rotations; how to view and display plate reconstructions and related data, including spreading rates and motion paths; and how to change frames of reference (absolute and relative), import and export data and images, and make animations of tectonic motions through time.

Because plate tectonics is the surface manifestation of a convecting mantle, it is also relevant to explore the structure and evolution of the deeper Earth interior. It is also particularly relevant for the discussion of large-scale volcanism because their emplacements are linked to the arrival of deep-seated mantle plumes that rise throughout the mantle and erupt at the surface. Such major volcanic and large igneous provinces of the Arctic include Iceland, the Paleogene North Atlantic Igneous Province (NAIP), the Cretaceous High Arctic LIP (HALIP), and the Permian Siberian Traps LIP. In a set of at least two lectures, the mantle is discussed from the perspective of what the major features that contribute to its heterogeneities are (including subducted slabs and plumes and core–mantle boundary features), what the main geophysical methods and datasets allowing for the identification of these mantle structures are (including gravity and the geoid, seismic tomography, and numerical modelling and geochemistry), and what the potential role of mantle dynamics in the enigmatic origins of the long-lived and pulsed HALIP is. As part of this lecture, the community-based visualization website SubMachine (Hosseini et al., 2018) was shown to the students, who learned how to plot and analyse different seismic tomography models both globally and specifically for the Arctic region.

Svalbard plays a critical role in our understanding of the tectonic and palaeogeographic evolution of the Arctic. In this module, we explore the regional geologic setting of Svalbard and delve into the tectonic events that have shaped Svalbard by placing those tectonic events into the larger tectonic evolution of the circum-Arctic. This begins by introducing the students to the major continental blocks that surround the present-day Arctic (i.e. Baltica, Laurentia, and Siberia; Fig. 6a) and to some of the currently exposed continental fragments within the Arctic (e.g. Svalbard, Franz Josef Land, New Siberian Islands, and Wrangel Island) that lend insight into the overall tectonic and palaeogeographic framework of the Arctic (e.g. Blakey, 2021). We then focus on the Neoproterozoic and younger mountain building events (e.g. Timanian, Caledonian, Ellesmerian/Svalbardian, Uralian, and Eurekan mountain belts) that have either influenced the tectonic structure of Svalbard or been a major sedimentary source for sedimentary successions exposed in Svalbard. This section of the course culminates with a focus on detrital zircon geochronologic datasets, time markers that allow for establishing the age of major tectonic events, that have been collected from Paleozoic sedimentary strata across the Arctic. The students also learned how data collected (as part of this course) from Svalbard have aided our understanding of Svalbard's regional tectonic evolution (Anfinson et al., 2022; Fig. 5).

To the south and east, Svalbard is directly connected to the submerged parts of the Barents Shelf (Fig. 6b). Geoscientists involved in ongoing petroleum exploration and production as well as active CO₂ storage in the southwestern Barents Shelf use Svalbard as an excellent analogue to the reservoirs and cap rocks further south (Olaussen et al., 2024; Henriksen et al., 2011). The region is naturally rich in exploration wells and seismic data, with a much denser coverage than on Svalbard. Not only are these data used to constrain the reservoir extent and architecture, but they also understand the larger-scale trends. Notable examples include detailed characterization of major sedimentary wedges in the Triassic and Cretaceous. The Triassic system, representing the largest delta plain in Earth's history (Klausen et al., 2019), is a westerly prograding system seen as clinoforms in seismic data across the Barents Shelf (Glørstad-Clark et al., 2011; Gilmullina et al., 2021) and as sand-prone sediments on Svalbard (Anell et al., 2014; Lundschien et al., 2014). The Cretaceous system is linked to uplift to the north associated with the HALIP emplacement, regional tilting, and fluvial-dominated system traversing Svalbard from the north depositing sediments to the south (Midtkandal et al., 2019; Grundvåg et al., 2017).

The Svalbard Archipelago, with its polar climate, offers vegetation-free and well-exposed outcrops testifying about a diverse tectono-stratigraphic evolution of the region. Geologically, Svalbard is presently the emergent part of the Barents Shelf but has been linked to Arctic Canada and northern Greenland prior to the Eurekan Orogen. The nearly continuous stratigraphic record from the Devonian to the Paleogene (Olaussen et al., 2024) provides evidence of Svalbard's overall northward motion through time overprinted by changing tectono-stratigraphic configurations. These include mid-Carboniferous rifting, Permian platform carbonates, Mesozoic siliciclastic deposits intruded by an igneous complex, and a Cenozoic fold-and-thrust-belt with an associated foreland basin. Late Cenozoic sediments are not present on Svalbard but occur in depocentres along the northern and western shelf margins off Svalbard.

However, Svalbard's high latitudinal position means that the rocks are snow-free and accessible only during a short summer season, typically from June to mid-September. During these times, boat-based transport and hiking is possible. Conversely, snow cover provides relatively easy access to large-scale inland outcrops via a snowmobile (that are too difficult to reach by foot) during the winter season with adequate light, from March to early May. The high seasonal dependence, combined with sudden weather events, has motivated us at UNIS to systematically acquire and openly share digital outcrop models (DOMs) and photospheres through the Svalbox database (Betlem et al., 2023; Senger et al., 2021a). These DOMs are georeferenced high-resolution 3-dimensional representations of the outcrops and facilitate quantitative sedimentological and structural work. Through Svalbox, the DOMs are also put in a regional context through spatial integration of maps (geological, topographical, palaeogeographic, geophysical, etc.), surface data (digital terrain models, satellite imagery, etc.), and subsurface data (boreholes, geophysical profiles, published cross sections, etc.) as illustrated for the Festningen geotope by Senger et al. (2022). Photospheres are systematically acquired as part of regular Svalbox campaigns and thematically grouped in virtual field trips using the VR Svalbard (https://vrsvalbard.com/, last access: 7 December 2024) platform (Horota et al., 2024). These drone-based 360° photographs provide a bird's eye perspective of the visited sites and are complementary to the more quantitative DOMs. Photospheres are also integrated into thematic datasets, for instance, related to the West Spitsbergen fold-and-thrust belt (Horota et al., 2023) visited during the October 2022 field campaign, to facilitate data access and the development of student projects. Students actively use these digital resources in the course to both prepare for fieldwork and conduct quantitative analyses as part of their individual research projects (Fig. 7).

Providing constraints on the absolute timing and duration of deformation as well as magmatic, metamorphic, or stratigraphic processes is of critical importance for deciphering the tectonic plate evolution of the Arctic. Radiometric dates serve as both input parameters and/or testable benchmarks for tectonic and thermal processes on all scales, from tectonic plate reconstructions and timing of magmatism to basin burial and maturation. The geochronology and thermochronology component of the AG-x51 course consists of three different learning modules: (1) overview and theory of radiometric dating methods, (2) application to tectonic and magmatic processes in the Arctic, and (3) hands-on exercises in detrital zircon U–Pb provenance analysis. The overview and theory for the geochronology portion covered the basics of radioactive decay, including which long-lived isotopes undergo radioactive decay and are commonly used in earth science applications, half-lives, how we can use the measured daughter and parent isotope ratios to calculate an age, and what makes a good mineral or system to use (i.e. radioactive parent with a well-defined half-life, no non-radiometric daughter isotope at t=0, mineralogic stability, etc.). We then focussed on U–Pb geochronology, which is widely applied everywhere, including the Arctic, and how we measure, calculate, plot, and evaluate U–Pb ages.

We discussed how U–Pb chronology can be applied to a wide suite of Arctic questions with specific examples including dating HALIP around the Arctic (Evenchick et al., 2015; Corfu et al., 2013) and palaeogeographic reconstructions using detrital zircon U–Pb provenance (Anfinson et al., 2012). The thermochronology portion introduced thermally activated diffusion and closure temperature (Dodson, 1973) as they apply to noble gas thermochronology (i.e. Ar–Ar and (U–Th) / He systems) and the basic principles of fission track thermochronology. We discussed the differences in geo- and thermochronology and then the power or combining different methods to understand thermal and tectonic histories and discussed an example of using 40Ar/39Ar thermochronology to understand Eurekan deformation on Svalbard (Schneider et al., 2019). The students were then introduced to geochron.org, a public database for geo- and thermochronology data, and did various searches for data so they learned about resources to acquire and use available geochronologic data in their own projects.

The climatic impacts observed from historical volcanic eruptions are well documented in the geological record, which allows us to assess the possible effects of elevated magmatic activity through time. Global climate is both dynamic and complex, and there is a plethora of ways that volcanic activity can influence local, regional, and global environmental conditions. This section of the course begins with an introduction to volcanism and magmatic systems, covering how melts are produced and how factors such as depth and degree of partial melting affect the melt composition. We then focus on the primary constituents of the melt and how this affects the physical properties of the magma, such as viscosity and saturation of volatile phases. We then follow the magmatic plumbing system towards the surface and investigate how these factors drive the style and explosivity of eruptions with the aid of a practical class. We end this section of the course by applying this information to outcrops in Svalbard, including the ash layers in the Palaeocene Firkanten Formation around Longyearbyen and also in Permian–Triassic sediments at Festningen. These layers act as marker horizons, which are used to help constrain plate reconstructions in the Arctic (Jones et al., 2017).

Once an understanding of volcanic processes has been established, we introduce the concepts of regional and global climate. This includes concepts such as the greenhouse effect and how changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases affect the climate through time. We then take this information based on current observations into the palaeo-climate realm, covering what methods of proxy data are used to estimate palaeo-environmental conditions and at what timescales each of these proxies can be used. Once these key ideas are established, we focus on volcanism and how elevated activity can perturb the climate system. This includes emissions of climate-sensitive gases such as sulfur and carbon species and how different sources (e.g. volcanic degassing vs. emissions from contact metamorphism around shallow intrusions) have differing climatic impacts. We also consider post-eruption processes, such as the silicate weathering of volcanic ash as a significant atmospheric carbon sink. This section of the course is concluded by investigating examples of large-scale volcanic activity and environmental disturbances in the geological record in Svalbard, including the NAIP coeval with the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum, the coincidence of HALIP and Cretaceous ocean anoxic events (OAEs), and the Siberian Traps being emplaced at the same time as the end-Permian mass extinction.

The role of contact metamorphism in large igneous provinces (LIPs) is manifold and is directly relevant for the Svalbard Archipelago. One of the most important effects of LIPs is the thermal impact of magma on the host rocks. The associated thermal maturation and/or cracking of organic matter found in sedimentary host rocks not only impacts hydrocarbon resources, but also was responsible for releasing massive quantities of greenhouse gases in the Earth's past, resulting in multiple mass extinction events (Svensen et al., 2004; Wignall, 2001; Hesselbo et al., 2002). Numerical modelling of these processes is an important tool to understand the effects they have on the environment and to also better constrain the physical parameters that drive them.

The course introduces the general physical processes and the associated equations that occur during magmatic emplacement. Basic modelling concepts and their advantages, uses, and caveats are outlined. A practical course that walks the students through the modelling of sill complexes with global examples and data from various LIPs is carried out using SILLi1D (Iyer et al., 2018), with a specific focus on HALIP magmatism in Svalbard (Brekke et al., 2014; Senger et al., 2014a). SILLi1D is an open-source, 1-dimensional finite-element (FEM) modelling tool that is specifically tailored to study the thermal effects of sill intrusions on the surrounding host rock. Model input is provided using MS Excel worksheets, which makes it accessible to a large audience with no previous programming skills. Input data are provided in the form of a simplified present-day well log or outcropping sedimentary column and include relevant rock parameters such as thermal conductivity, total organic carbon (TOC) content, porosity, and latent heats. Multiple sills can be emplaced within the system with varying ages and temperatures. Besides sill processes, the model also includes sedimentation and erosion, if any, to account for realistic basin evolution. The model output includes the thermal evolution of the sedimentary column through time and the host-rock changes that take place following sill emplacement such as TOC changes, thermal maturity (vitrinite reflectance), and amount of organic and carbonate-derived CO₂. Rock parameters such as thermal conductivity and porosity are uncertain but only play a secondary role in controlling the overall thermal effects in a sill complex. The relative timing of sill emplacement together with emplacement temperature, however, exerts first-order thermal control in the aureole around a sill complex. These parameters are also not well constrained. The SILLi models can be used to better constrain such parameters if calibration data, such as vitrinite reflectance, are available by minimizing the error in the modelled results to the data. The amount of erosion also affects the background thermal maturity and can also be better estimated, similarly to sill emplacement parameters, by comparing the modelled maturity to the data. A number of examples are worked through with the students, with a few examples set aside as supervised exercises. The students are also encouraged to use the tool to investigate sill-complex outcrops from HALIP.

Undertaking safe field operations is of paramount importance, and compulsory safety courses are held for all students and lecturers participating in the field component of the course. The courses are coordinated by the experienced safety and logistics staff of UNIS and are held over 2 to 3 full working days within the first week of the course. While experience is not something that can be trained, the strategy of the safety training is to give all participants irrespective of academic position the required skills to be able to make informed decisions about safety when in the field. Overall, 1 d is spent on safe rifle handling and polar bear encounter prevention, culminating in a practical shooting exercise at the rifle range outside Longyearbyen. The second day involves season-specific training; either survival suit or small-boat operations (for fieldwork in summer/autumn); or snowmobile safety and driving, sled packing, travel on sea ice/glaciers, and avalanche rescue (for fieldwork in spring). The third day includes first-aid techniques and navigation and communication protocols. Prior to undertaking any fieldwork (which by UNIS rules is defined as anything outside the UNIS building), briefings are held by all trip attendees and UNIS safety staff representatives. Before and during the fieldwork, plans were regularly adapted to account for weather conditions and wildlife sightings. As an example, the Paleogene basin infill sequence was only investigated from a distance, aboard the M/S Polarsyssel, in October 2023 due to a polar bear sighting in the area (Fig. 8d).

Fieldwork is an integral part of all UNIS courses, and this course is also designed around a strong field component (Table 1; Fig. 8). The time of year and season(s) of when the course was run dictated the locations and operational requirements of the fieldwork and had to be adaptable to changing environmental conditions and any unforeseen logistical requirements at any time. Nonetheless, the fieldwork always tied the broader Barents Shelf and Arctic geology evolution to outcropping units that the students were describing and discussing as part of their field tasks. We detail selected field sites below, including the sites of Festningen, Diabasodden, the West Spitsbergen fold-and-thrust belt, the Central Spitsbergen Basin, and Billefjorden.

The Festningen profile, Svalbard's only geotope (i.e. an area formally protected because of geology), was visited in both late summer and early spring (one year experienced 0.5 m snowfall in the month of May). At Festningen, the students were able to visit and describe the main stratigraphic intervals and discuss correlations to the Barents Shelf and other Arctic basins. The entire section has been digitalized as a high-resolution DOM and integrated with geoscientific surface and subsurface data (Senger et al., 2022), which the students actively use in both preparing field stop preparations and post-fieldwork analyses.

Another key target for the field campaigns are the exposures of the Diabasodden Suite (Senger et al., 2014b; Dallmann et al., 1999), the local equivalents of the Early Cretaceous HALIP. The dolerites are exposed throughout Svalbard, and we often targeted the excellent exposures at Botneheia and Grønsteinfjellet. Here, both sills and dykes are well exposed and intersect a potential CO₂ storage reservoir-cap rock system. This provides a theme for discussing how igneous plumbing systems affect subsurface fluid flow and also how the Svalbard dolerites correlate to the circum-Arctic HALIP.

Depending on the season and transport options, we also visit sites of relevance for tectono-stratigraphic evolution. These include the West Spitsbergen fold-and-thrust belt (the Svalbard part of the Eurekan mountain building event affecting large parts of the Arctic; Braathen et al., 1999; Piepjohn et al., 2016) and the associated foreland basin, the Central Spitsbergen Basin (Helland-Hansen and Grundvåg, 2020), as well as the mid-Carboniferous rift basin at Billefjorden (Smyrak-Sikora et al., 2019). Key sites that cannot be visited in person are addressed in lectures and using digital outcrop models and virtual field guides, including the WSFTB thematic data package provided by Horota et al. (2023).

Figure 9 summarizes the quantitative student experiences. The response group covers all of the four years when the course was run (2018–2023), with 55 % of respondents being MSc students and 63 % of the respondents never having been above the Arctic Circle (Fig. 9a). There is, as usual, a mix of students choosing the course based on the learning objectives and the course being held at UNIS. Notably, the vast majority (82 %) of the respondents did not take a course on Arctic geology in the past. The student background was varied, including a mix of geologists, geophysicists, and economic geologists (Table 3).

The course received largely positive feedback on the number and scientific diversity of guest lecturers and the balance between fieldwork, lectures, and seminars (Fig. 9b). The course contributed to improving the familiarity with Arctic field conditions of the respondents and providing an understanding of Arctic geology (Fig. 9b). Approximately half of the respondents still contribute to the Arctic research community.

Table 3 lists a selection of responses to the more open questions. Practical skills and knowledge learned during the course include both geoscientific concepts and also the active use of different software, and especially GPlates. Similarly, the biggest improvement experienced by the respondents was understanding not only geoscientific topics (with Arctic geology being the key improvement for many), but also data integration, software skills, and development of independent research projects. The teaching methods were well received, and the multi-disciplinary one-on-one supervision of research projects and active learning was mentioned by several students. The final student comments indicate suggestions for improvement (such as more fieldwork and focus on a single piece of software) and also demonstrate the non-academic impact of the course, for instance, on networking and the students' personal development and networking.

We (Anna Sartell, Fenna Ammerlaan, Julian Janocha, and Rafael Horota) have each been involved in the AG-x51 course and the NOR-R-AM project at different stages of our research careers. We all participated in the course either as enrolled students during our MSc or PhD and/or have assisted as polar bear guards. These perspectives allow us to collectively reflect on the course and the opportunities that came from it.

The course was taught by members of the NOR-R-AM project, who are leading experts within their fields. This not only allowed us to learn about Arctic volcanism and tectonics from scientists with personal experience working in this region, but also gave us the opportunity to build professional relationships. This was made possible by utilizing the extensive time spent with our international peers and instructors during the course, including that during lectures, practical sessions, research projects, fieldwork, and social activities. This networking has led to many continuing personal development opportunities. To mention just a few of the opportunities, the course had profound implications on our career by collaborating with NOR-R-AM partners on our Master and PhD theses and even including some as official co-supervisors. Some of us were also able to join other NOR-R-AM courses, such as the geochronology workshop in Austin, Texas, or the field trip to Alaska. Moreover, NOR-R-AM was able to provide travel and analysis grants to accomplish the goals of the collaborations beyond those of the course. An overview of how the course functioned as a stepping stone for further involvement in the NOR-R-AM program and what impact this had on our individual career paths is illustrated by Fig. 10.

Although our understanding of the geologic evolution of the Arctic is aided by geophysical surveys within the Arctic Ocean, we largely base our comprehension of this region on studies concerning the geology of the surrounding landmasses. Hence, within the Arctic, arguably more than anywhere else on Earth, there is a considerable need for cross-country research and teaching collaboration to get a more complete picture of the region's geologic evolution. This becomes even more apparent as we travel further back in time. For instance, our rather incomplete understanding of the opening of the Amerasian Basin in the Mesozoic requires correlation between tectonic and magmatic events and geologic units from the Canadian Arctic, Alaska, and northeastern Siberia (Shephard et al., 2013). Looking at earlier times, in order to understand the extent of the late Proterozoic/Early Paleozoic Timanian Orogen, we require a comprehensive review of sparse geologic evidence of this mountain-building event identified in locations such as Siberia, Scandinavia, North America, and numerous Arctic archipelagos (e.g. Svalbard, New Siberian Islands, and Severnaya Zemlya; e.g. Gee et al., 2006). The further we delve back in time, the more uncertain the reconstruction of the Arctic's geologic evolution becomes and the more a spatio-temporal perspective on Arctic evolution demands an interdisciplinary and collaborative effort that transcends national boundaries. The NOR-R-AM collaborative project has aimed to address this through providing numerous international educational opportunities (e.g. the course described in this contribution) in order to bring researchers and students from various Arctic countries together and to gain perspective on the geology of the Arctic regions from other countries.

In addition, the vast and remote landscapes of the Arctic, coupled with harsh climatic conditions, have limited the accessibility and comprehensive mapping of geological features and acquisition of field data. The scarcity of geoscience data highlights two needs within the Arctic community: (1) cross-country collaboration to generate a reliable database to store this patchwork of data and (2) availability of testable geodynamic models that take into account data that transcends international boundaries. Cross-country initiatives, such as the NOR-R-AM project, are necessary to bring together researchers from various nations (Table 2) to pool their expertise and resources. This collaborative approach recognizes that no single country possesses the entirety of the puzzle; instead, a mosaic of insights from different perspectives is required to construct a comprehensive narrative of the Arctic's geologic evolution.

From the onset, we have designed the course with focus on active, hands-on learning at the expense of frontal lecture-based education. The culmination of this was the delivery of the student research projects where adequate (but not infinite) time is allocated to test a scientific hypothesis using the provided data and skill sets.

To make the course as authentic as possible, we teach and integrate a broad range of software and tools (Table 4). Obviously, there is insufficient time within a 6-week course period to go in depth regarding all of the relevant topics, and we take the approach to expose the entire class to as many tools and topics and possible and provide them with an active learning approach. For data mining purposes, the GPlates and SILLi programs are also linked to hands-on exercises for the entire class. For smaller student groups that use a specific software, sometimes only available under specific licenses, during their term projects, additional hands-on sessions are organized. In addition, we used a pre-course questionnaire to identify the strengths of individual students (for instance, significant experience in GPlates) who acted as additional tutors in the hands-on sessions to assist their peers.

With such diverse software, we have devised pre-loaded projects in Petrel and GPlates software (Fig. 11), with the data packages available to anyone as part of the supplementary material (Senger and Shephard, 2023). Petrel is largely used to spatially integrate the surface (terrain models; bathymetry; and geological, topographical, and satellite maps) with the subsurface (borehole and geophysical data plus geomodels). The thematic dataset provided for the AGx51 builds on the ongoing Svalbox project. The key benefit of such direct integration is to spend less time on data loading and more time on the scientific benefits of data integration, for instance, in the AGx51 student projects. The integration of multi-physical data, for instance, geophysics with geology, also facilitates joint interpretation. Finally, the provision of curated (and regularly updated) databases that we do for the AGx51 course is even more important in the Arctic, where data are often fragmentary and sparsely acquired over a large area.

The main motivation of exposing the students to such a wide range of software within a short time frame is to appreciate that geoscience is undergoing a digital transformation (Bouziat et al., 2020; Gunderson et al., 2020). McCaffrey et al. (2005) recognized that affordable digital technologies will revolutionize how field geology is conducted. Ruggedized tablets, as described from the Svalbard environment by Senger and Nordmo (2021) or lidar-equipped iPhone (Tavani et al., 2022) drone-based imagery, have led to the widespread adoption of digital outcrop modelling (Betlem et al., 2023). Geology has traditionally been an observation-focussed domain, with a focus on measuring nature at various scales, recording mostly qualitative data in the field. Through digitization, we bring quantitative and repeatable analyses into geology, for instance, through the active use of digital outcrop models or time-lapse digital tectonic plate reconstructions. Such efforts are necessary to not only gain a better understanding of Earth's evolution but also have the future added benefit of recruiting students to the geosciences and bridging the gap between geoscientists and data scientists.

The complex spatial–temporal tectono-magmatic evolution of Svalbard imposes logistical challenges to exemplify geological concepts in the field within the framework of the AG-x51 course. However, modern technology and digital tools provide innovative solutions to overcome these obstacles. Geospatial data and GIS are essential for creating detailed maps of the region, facilitating the teaching of concepts like tectonic evolution and volcanic processes. Indeed, 3-dimensional modelling and visualization tools allow for the creation of immersive models that aid in understanding complex geological structures by supporting 3-dimensional thinking. Remote sensing technologies, such as drones and satellites, provide real-time data and images, enabling students to change the observer's perspective when analysing large-scale geology. Digital workflows and analytical tools streamline data analysis, while online collaboration platforms enhance collective learning experiences. Virtual field trips offer a safe and accessible way for students to explore Svalbard's geological features, fostering a deeper understanding of the region's unique geology. In essence, the integration of these digital tools and workflows empowers students to engage in hands-on learning, regardless of the remote and challenging environment of Svalbard.

In the unforgiving Arctic field sites, such digital tools are almost a must to overcome the various challenges of field teaching at Svalbard (Senger et al., 2021b). However, lessons from the Arctic, be they technological, pedagogical, or both, can also be adapted at more temperate latitudes to improve accessibility (Whitmeyer et al., 2020; Atchison and Libarkin, 2013). We are also strong proponents that active and targeted digital geoscience tool usage in both education and outreach can significantly improve the diversity challenge faced by the geosciences (Hall et al., 2022).

In this contribution, we have focussed on the AG-x51 NOR-R-AM flagship course that also continues beyond the project period; however, Table 5 lists other educational and outreach activities undertaken as part of the NOR-R-AM project. The geographic and thematic diversity of these events testifies to the international and multi-disciplinary nature of the NOR-R-AM project.