the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Jul 2021
Interactive virtual fieldtrip as a tool for remote education
Abstract. Geoscience courses, such as geology and geomorphology, require not only classroom lessons and laboratory exercises, but field trips as well. However, the COVID-19 restrictions did not allow the prosecution of most planned field trips, and an alternative needed to be developed. The use of virtual field trips is one such alternative. Through them, one can not only visit any area of interest, but prepare themselves for any actual educational or exploratory field trip as well. Even though they do not, and should not, substitute any physical visit of a site of interest, they have many advantages when combined with a "live" field work, in comparison to a field trip for which no preparation has been made.
Through this research, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of both virtual and real educational field trips based on the opinions of our students. We thus performed a virtual navigation on the island of Naxos, Cyclades (Aegean Sea, Greece) for a series of virtual field trips, which took place during webinars in the framework of Erasmus+ CIVIS. The virtual fieldtrip was also presented to the third-year students of the Faculty of Geology & Geo-environment, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, in the framework of the obligatory course of Geomorphology. Upon completion, all participating students were asked to fill in a questionnaire in order to evaluate the contribution of virtual field trips to their education regarding geomorphology and state their opinion as to whether they can supplement and/or substitute actual field trips. Most of them stated that virtual field trips can aid, but not substitute the actual field work. Most students mentioned that they would attend another virtual field trip in the future, both as an alternative to classroom lessons and as a means of preparation for an actual field trip, but not in order not to attend the actual one.
- Preprint
(918 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-21', Solmaz Mohadjer, 22 Jul 2021
This is a timely manuscript as the covid pandemic has forced many university programs to provide students access to field studies. I have a couple of questions and comments:
- What are the study objectives? This was not stated clearly in the text. If the main objective is to compare virtual with real field trips in this specific setting, then the testing of actual field trips to this specific setting is missing. If this is true, then students are asked to compare the virtual trips they have done with a trip that they have not actually done. This needs to be clarified before going into results and discussions.
- I couldn't find the questionnaire used by the authors to evaluate the virtual field trips. Please consider adding it to the main manuscript so that readers can see how the questions were framed. A discussion section on the questionnaire design would be helpful too. For instance, what is the purpose behind each question and how does each question connect to the main objectives of this study. Again, we need to know what those objectives are, so we know what's being evaluated.
- I suggest including the link to the storymap in the manuscript text so that readers can easily access and view it. The hyperlink in line 76 does not work.
- I suggest include a workflow and/or a storyboard for the virtual field trips and include these in the method section. This can quickly give readers an overview of the curriculum structure, topics covered, and connections drawn between them. This would be in addition to the snapshots in Fig 1 which at the current resolution are too small to be meaningful.
- I think section 3 (study area) needs some context. Since this manuscript is about the virtual field trip, I suggest discussing each subsection (e.g., geodynamics, geology, geomorphology, etc.) in the context of curriculum design and study objectives. For example, when discussing the geomorphology of the study area, it would be useful to know what considerations had to be made to introduce students to geomorphological topics and how does the content covered in this section reflect those considerations. This would make this section much more interesting to readers and more relevant to geoscience communication.
- Please include other information about the testing of the curriculum. How long does it take for a student to complete the trip(s)? Did the students complete the trips alone or together with other students? Over how many days the testing was conducted? Did the students have access to their instructor while completing the trips? Did they run into any problems (technical and non-technical)?
- I agree that virtual and real field trips are two different experiences both for the students and the instructors. However, there are many elements of real trips that can be brought into the virtual world including student-student and teacher-student interactions, data collection and interpretation. Based on my quick review of the content, the virtual field trips used in this study are not designed to be very interactive. Students are often shown images that they can zoom in and out of and sometimes 3D images and videos to check out. The content often reads like an online textbook. One way to make the content more interactive is to ask students to look for specific features in an image or satellite imagery, or show them the features but ask them to identify similar features and/or explain what could these features mean in terms of outcrop history, evolution etc. These are often questions that instructors and students discuss when they are looking at an outcrop in the field, and can be easily brought into virtual trips.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-21-CC1 - AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Niki Evelpidou, 10 Oct 2021
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-21', Denise Balmer, 11 Aug 2021
Virtual fieldwork - interesting but needs some more input please
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Niki Evelpidou, 10 Oct 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2021-21', Anna Hicks, 19 Aug 2021
General comments
I do not believe there is not enough original content in this paper for it to be published. The lead author has self-cited throughout and has included much of their own work in Section 3 that is far too detailed and irrelevant for the paper. The authors have already published the results of a similar survey (likely conducted simultaneously as the cohort is the same) in the same Geoscience Communication special issue “Virtual field trips as a tool for indirect geomorphological experience: a case study from the southeastern part of the Gulf of Corinth, Greece”. In my opinion, the results presented here should have been included in that publication.
I agree with the points Mohadjer has raised, and, if the authors wish to publish these results, I encourage them to develop this paper considerably in light of the comments below and the suggestions raised by Mohadjer.
Specific comments
24 This is supposition – do you mean field trips can support the classroom-taught principles? I wouldn’t say they allow students to understand concepts in any certain terms.
40 I’m not convinced this example of the challenges of Greek educators visiting another location is particularly relevant. It’s obvious that actual fieldtrips require transportation, time, and resources, it’s not necessary to add a weak example.
45 I think you can be satisfied the reader will know what weather conditions are – no need to add examples.
49 Careful with your use of ‘paramount significance’ here! Is it really? Do you present the evidence?
67 I’m confused about your approach and thinking here. Are you testing a hypothesis that virtual field trips are useful supplements but not substitutes to actual field trips? You seem to be suggesting here that you know this already….so why study it?
82 84 of the whole cohort of students completed the questionnaire? Or 84 of the 134 third year students? Created for what purpose? Please add some more information here. What were you asking the students?
132-133 It is useful to know the reasons why the region was chosen, such as you have done here. Much of the detail in Section 3 is superfluous, and unless it is directly relevant to the aims of the study, I’d advise removing much of it, or explaining why the detail is important to include in this particular paper.
Figure 5 Is very poor quality.
I’m afraid I stopped reviewing at this point as the discussion and conclusions are not original contributions to research (see general comments).
Technical comments
- Be consistent with your use of fieldtrip or field trip, fieldwork or field work.
7 I’d advise changing the word prosecution throughout the manuscript. It has two meanings in English.
12 Be consistent throughout with your use of live, real or actual field trip. I would recommend actual.
28 I suggest moving this sentence before the previous and slightly developing the sentence which you provide a reference by Clark. Are you talking here about the power of field trips as shared experiences? If so, please provide a little more information.
31 Advise using students or participants instead of ‘attendants’
47 Can be not they are
48 some not most
81 to not at
104 no need to tell us which programme you used to created your map
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-21-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Niki Evelpidou, 10 Oct 2021
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-21', Solmaz Mohadjer, 22 Jul 2021
This is a timely manuscript as the covid pandemic has forced many university programs to provide students access to field studies. I have a couple of questions and comments:
- What are the study objectives? This was not stated clearly in the text. If the main objective is to compare virtual with real field trips in this specific setting, then the testing of actual field trips to this specific setting is missing. If this is true, then students are asked to compare the virtual trips they have done with a trip that they have not actually done. This needs to be clarified before going into results and discussions.
- I couldn't find the questionnaire used by the authors to evaluate the virtual field trips. Please consider adding it to the main manuscript so that readers can see how the questions were framed. A discussion section on the questionnaire design would be helpful too. For instance, what is the purpose behind each question and how does each question connect to the main objectives of this study. Again, we need to know what those objectives are, so we know what's being evaluated.
- I suggest including the link to the storymap in the manuscript text so that readers can easily access and view it. The hyperlink in line 76 does not work.
- I suggest include a workflow and/or a storyboard for the virtual field trips and include these in the method section. This can quickly give readers an overview of the curriculum structure, topics covered, and connections drawn between them. This would be in addition to the snapshots in Fig 1 which at the current resolution are too small to be meaningful.
- I think section 3 (study area) needs some context. Since this manuscript is about the virtual field trip, I suggest discussing each subsection (e.g., geodynamics, geology, geomorphology, etc.) in the context of curriculum design and study objectives. For example, when discussing the geomorphology of the study area, it would be useful to know what considerations had to be made to introduce students to geomorphological topics and how does the content covered in this section reflect those considerations. This would make this section much more interesting to readers and more relevant to geoscience communication.
- Please include other information about the testing of the curriculum. How long does it take for a student to complete the trip(s)? Did the students complete the trips alone or together with other students? Over how many days the testing was conducted? Did the students have access to their instructor while completing the trips? Did they run into any problems (technical and non-technical)?
- I agree that virtual and real field trips are two different experiences both for the students and the instructors. However, there are many elements of real trips that can be brought into the virtual world including student-student and teacher-student interactions, data collection and interpretation. Based on my quick review of the content, the virtual field trips used in this study are not designed to be very interactive. Students are often shown images that they can zoom in and out of and sometimes 3D images and videos to check out. The content often reads like an online textbook. One way to make the content more interactive is to ask students to look for specific features in an image or satellite imagery, or show them the features but ask them to identify similar features and/or explain what could these features mean in terms of outcrop history, evolution etc. These are often questions that instructors and students discuss when they are looking at an outcrop in the field, and can be easily brought into virtual trips.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-21-CC1 - AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Niki Evelpidou, 10 Oct 2021
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-21', Denise Balmer, 11 Aug 2021
Virtual fieldwork - interesting but needs some more input please
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Niki Evelpidou, 10 Oct 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2021-21', Anna Hicks, 19 Aug 2021
General comments
I do not believe there is not enough original content in this paper for it to be published. The lead author has self-cited throughout and has included much of their own work in Section 3 that is far too detailed and irrelevant for the paper. The authors have already published the results of a similar survey (likely conducted simultaneously as the cohort is the same) in the same Geoscience Communication special issue “Virtual field trips as a tool for indirect geomorphological experience: a case study from the southeastern part of the Gulf of Corinth, Greece”. In my opinion, the results presented here should have been included in that publication.
I agree with the points Mohadjer has raised, and, if the authors wish to publish these results, I encourage them to develop this paper considerably in light of the comments below and the suggestions raised by Mohadjer.
Specific comments
24 This is supposition – do you mean field trips can support the classroom-taught principles? I wouldn’t say they allow students to understand concepts in any certain terms.
40 I’m not convinced this example of the challenges of Greek educators visiting another location is particularly relevant. It’s obvious that actual fieldtrips require transportation, time, and resources, it’s not necessary to add a weak example.
45 I think you can be satisfied the reader will know what weather conditions are – no need to add examples.
49 Careful with your use of ‘paramount significance’ here! Is it really? Do you present the evidence?
67 I’m confused about your approach and thinking here. Are you testing a hypothesis that virtual field trips are useful supplements but not substitutes to actual field trips? You seem to be suggesting here that you know this already….so why study it?
82 84 of the whole cohort of students completed the questionnaire? Or 84 of the 134 third year students? Created for what purpose? Please add some more information here. What were you asking the students?
132-133 It is useful to know the reasons why the region was chosen, such as you have done here. Much of the detail in Section 3 is superfluous, and unless it is directly relevant to the aims of the study, I’d advise removing much of it, or explaining why the detail is important to include in this particular paper.
Figure 5 Is very poor quality.
I’m afraid I stopped reviewing at this point as the discussion and conclusions are not original contributions to research (see general comments).
Technical comments
- Be consistent with your use of fieldtrip or field trip, fieldwork or field work.
7 I’d advise changing the word prosecution throughout the manuscript. It has two meanings in English.
12 Be consistent throughout with your use of live, real or actual field trip. I would recommend actual.
28 I suggest moving this sentence before the previous and slightly developing the sentence which you provide a reference by Clark. Are you talking here about the power of field trips as shared experiences? If so, please provide a little more information.
31 Advise using students or participants instead of ‘attendants’
47 Can be not they are
48 some not most
81 to not at
104 no need to tell us which programme you used to created your map
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-21-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Niki Evelpidou, 10 Oct 2021
Data sets
Exploring the Geoenvironment of Naxos Evelpidou. N., Giannikopoulou A., Komi A., Lykouropoulos M., Tzouxanioti M. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/beb85e3b9d284d398655866ca033f0e1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 803 | 446 | 58 | 1,307 | 34 | 33 |
- HTML: 803
- PDF: 446
- XML: 58
- Total: 1,307
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
