Search for: All records

Field experiences are highly valued in geoscience education. However, logistical, financial, and accessibility challenges associated with fieldwork and rapid advancements in technology have all prompted geoscience educators to explore virtual field experiences (VFEs) as alternatives. Rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of VFEs has not kept pace with their implementation, but recent studies offer meaningful and actionable findings that can inform ongoing and future use of VFEs in geoscience education. We present a review of selected studies that address three significant aspects of this still-evolving modality. First, we examine current characterization and classification of VFEs. Second, we examine studies that evaluate the effectiveness of teaching with VFEs. Third, we extend this review to studies that compare VFEs with in-person field experiences (IPFEs). The studies we review demonstrate that VFEs are a valuable approach to teaching introductory geoscience content, even compared to IPFEs.▪Challenges associated with field geoscience education and improvements in technology have led geoscience educators to develop and implement virtual field experiences (VFEs) as teaching tools.▪VFEs are tested, practical, and effective alternatives to in-person field experiences in introductory geoscience education. 

Field learning is fundamental in geoscience, but cost, accessibility, and other constraints limit equal access to these experiences. As technological advances afford ever more immersive and student-centered virtual field experiences, they are likely to have a growing role across geoscience education. They also serve as an important tool for providing high-quality online instruction, whether to fully online degree students, students in hybrid in-person/remote programs, or students experiencing disruptions to in-person learning, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. This mixed-methods study compared learning outcomes of an in-person (ipFT) and a virtual (iVFT) geoscience field trip to Grand Canyon National Park, each of which highlighted the Great Unconformity. Participants included introductory and advanced geology students. In the ipFT, students collectively explored the Canyon through the interpretive Trail of Time along the Canyon rim, guided by the course instructor. In the iVFT, students individually explored the Canyon and studied its geology at river level. 360° spherical images anchor the iVFTs and serve as a framework for programmed overlays that enable active learning and allow for adaptive feedback. We assessed cognitive and affective outcomes in both trips using common measures. Regression analysis showed the iVFT to be associated with significantly greater learning gains. The ipFT students had significantly higher positive affect scores pre-trip, reflecting their excitement for the trip. Overall, our results provide clear evidence that high-quality iVFTs can lead to better learning gains than ipFTs. Although field trips are employed for more than just content learning, this finding may encourage greater use of iVFTs in coursework. 

Abstract Geochronology and geochemistry are critical tools in geoscience research and research training, but students and faculty at many institutions have little or no access to the specialized and expensive facilities needed for sample preparation and analysis. Here, we explore whether a community laboratory, dedicated to hosting and training visitors, can help address this inequity by increasing access to specialized geochemical techniques and the resulting data. We report the first three years of outcomes from the Community Cosmogenic Facility, the goal of which is to improve access by making an increasingly important analytic technique more widely available. Although the facility we describe here focuses on cosmogenic nuclide sample preparation, the model we present is viable across the geosciences. Three years of development, assessment, and refinement demonstrate that the community laboratory model increased technique access to undergraduate and graduate students. Women were represented in first‐authored, peer‐reviewed papers at a rate nearly twice that of the broader community. In contrast, the participation of under‐represented groups did not increase over geoscience norms. Our data clearly illustrate that challenges to fostering a diverse geoscience community persist. Proactive interaction with faculty and students at Minority Serving Institutions, cohort‐focused training models, and financial support to visit community laboratories may be future steps toward further diversifying users of community facilities.